ASSESSMENT BRIEF – 4
COURSE: Bachelor of Business / Bachelor of Accounting
Unit Code:
LEMT305
Unit Title: Leadership for Managers
Type of Assessment: Comprehensive case study
Length/Duration: Self Reflective Summary – 2500 words
Unit Learning Outcomes addressed: 1. Understand the concepts and theories of leadership.
2. Identify various leadership styles.
3. Identify the importance of leadership qualities for managers.
4. Understand how leadership is applied in practice in teams and in an organisation.
5. Enhance skills to develop leadership in an organisation.
6. Choose an effective and ethical leadership style in a work environment.
7. Demonstrate a cohesive knowledge of the concepts and theories of leadership
Submission Date: Week 14
Assessment Task: Comprehensive case study analysis
Total Mark: 40 marks
Weighting: 40%
Students are advised that submission of an Assessment Task past the due date without a formally signed approved AssignmentExtension Form (Kent Website MyKent Student Link FORM–Assignment Extension
Application Form–Student LoginRequired)or previously approved application for other extenuating circumstances impacting course of study, incurs a 5% penalty per calendar day, calculatedby deduction from the total mark.
For example. An AssessmentTask marked out of 40 will incur a 2 mark penalty for eachcalendar day.
More information, please refer to (Kent Website MyKent Student Link POLICY – Assessment Policy &
Procedures– Student Login Required)
ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION:
Your final assessment is an individual written assignment of approx 2,500 words as per the following description:
Students are required to answer questions based on two comprehensive case studies. Word limit of each case study is 1,250 words. These case studies will be uploaded on the Moodle site in week 10 along with the guidelines to attempt it.
ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:
The final assessment for all students is due at 11.59 pm on Sunday of Week 14.
The assignment must be submitted online in Moodle. All materials must be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format (other formats e.g., pdf or mac file may not be readable by markers). No paper-based or hardcopy submission will be accepted.
Please note that this is an individual assessment and any similarity score greater than 20% will be treated as academic misconduct.
No referencing of sources is required for either part of this final assessment. MARKING GUIDE (RUBRIC): 40%
Marking Criteria. Fail (0-9.9) Pass (10-12.5) Credit (13-14.5) Distinction (15-16.5) High Distinction (1720)
Research
10 Marks Little evidence of research. Sources are missing, Inappropriate, poorly integrated or lacking credibility. Lacks clear link of sources with essay Textbook and 4 other relevant peer reviewed sources. Basic use of sources to support ideas, generally well integrated, most sources are credible. May be weaknesses with paraphrasing or integration/application Research is generally thorough. Good use of sources to support ideas, mostly well integrated, sources are credible. May be weaknesses with paraphrasing or integration/ application. Thorough research is indicated. Very good use of sources to support ideas, well integrated, sources are credible. May be minor weaknesses with paraphrasing or integration/application. Thorough research is indicated. Professional use of sources to support ideas, well integrated, sources are credible. Very minor, if any, weaknesses with paraphrasing integration/application.
Information / Content
10 Marks Report lacks coherence; topic is poorly addressed; little analysis. Report is generally coherent; topic is addressed; analyses in reasonable depth with some description. There are some inconsistencies and weaknesses with flow. Report is coherent and flows well; topic is addressed quite thoroughly; analyses in considerable depth. There may be some inconsistencies and weaknesses with flow. Report is very coherent and flows well; topic is addressed thoroughly; analyses in depth. There may be minor inconsistencies and weakness with flow. Professional work. Report is very coherent and flows well; topic is addressed thoroughly; analyses in great depth. Very minor, if any, inconsistencies and weaknesses with flow.
Structure
10 Marks Topic, concepts are not clear in introduction. Material in the body is generally poorly sequenced. No discernible conclusion; no links to introduction. Topic, concepts are generally stated with some clarity in introduction. Material in body is generally logically sequenced; some weaknesses. Conclusion does not clearly summarise report, links to introduction are not clear. Topic, concepts are moderately outlined in introduction. Material in body is logically and broadly sequenced; with some minor weaknesses. Conclusion broadly summarises report
with
recommendations
and broadly links to introduction. Topic, concepts are clearly outlined in introduction. Material in body is logically and clearly sequenced; very few or minor weaknesses. Conclusion mostly effectively summarises report with recommendations and
clear links to introduction. Topic, concepts are clearly outlined in introduction. Material in body is logically and clearly sequenced; very minor, if any, weaknesses. Conclusion effectively summarises report with recommendations and clear links to introduction.
Language/
Presentation/
5 Marks
Referencing 5 marks
Total 10marks Poor standard of writing. Word limit may not be adhered to. No or minimal reference list, mixed styles. Maximum 1000 words Basic and sound standard of writing; some errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Reference list is generally complete with 1 or 2 references missing. Good standard of writing; few errors
in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Few inaccuracies in reference list and all references listed. Very good standard of writing; very few or minor errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Thorough and consistent reference list and all references listed. Professional standard of writing; no errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Professional
level of referencing and acknowledgment; no errors of style evident.
GENERAL NOTES FOR ASSESSMENT TASKS [NOT APPLICABLE FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT]
Content for Assessment Task papers should incorporate a formal introduction, main points and conclusion.
Appropriate academic writing and referencing are inevitable academic skills that you must develop and demonstrate in work being presented for assessment. The content of high quality work presented by a student must be fully referenced within-text citations and a Reference List at the end. Kent strongly recommends you refer to the Academic Learning Support Workshop materials available on the Kent Learning Management System (Moodle). For details please click the link http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606 and download the file titled “Harvard Referencing Workbook”. This Moodle Site is the location for Workbooks and information that are presented to Kent Students in the ALS Workshops conducted at the beginning of each Trimester.
Kent recommends a minimum of FIVE (5) references in work being presented for assessment. Unless otherwise specifically instructed by your Lecturer or as detailed in the Unit Outline for the specific Assessment Task, any paper with less than five (5) references may be deemed not meeting a satisfactory standard and possibly be failed.
Content in Assessment tasks that includes sources that are not properly referenced according to the “Harvard Referencing Workbook” will be penalised.
Marks will be deducted for failure to adhere to the word count if this is specifically stated for the Assessment Task in the Unit Outline. As a general rule there is an allowable discretionary variance to the word count in that it is generally accepted that a student may go over or under by 10% than the stated length.
GENERAL NOTES FOR REFERENCING [NOT APPLICABLE FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT]
References are assessed for their quality. Students should draw on quality academic sources, such as books, chapters from edited books, journals etc. The textbook for the Unit of study can be used as a reference, but not the Lecturer Notes. The Assessor will want to see evidence that a student is capable of conducting their own research. Also, in order to help Assessors determine a student’s understanding of the work they cite, all in-text references (not just direct quotes) must include the specific page number(s) if shown in the original.
Before preparing your Assessment Task or own contribution, please review this ‘YouTube’ video (Avoiding Plagiarism through Referencing) by clicking on the following link: link: http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606
A search for peer-reviewed journal articles may also assist students. These type of journal articles can be located in the online journal databases and can be accessed from the Kent Library homepage. Wikipedia, online dictionaries and online encyclopaedias are acceptable as a starting point to gain knowledge about a topic, but should not be over-used – these should constitute no more than 10% of your total list of references/sources. Additional information and literature can be used where these are produced by legitimate sources, such as government departments, research institutes such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), or international organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO). Legitimate organisations and government departments produce peer reviewed reports and articles and are therefore very useful and mostly very current. The content of the following link explains why it is not acceptable to use non-peer reviewed websites (Why can’t I just Google?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39mnu1Pkgw (thank you to La Trobe University for access to this video).

Published by

Medical

View all posts