Assessment 1: Individual Case Study Analysis
Assessment 1: Individual Case Study Analysis
Students will be required to examine and analyse the prescribed case study on Canvas and answer the questions at the end of the brief. The answers should demonstrate understanding of the subject theory and concepts.
Due date: Sunday of Week 6, 28th of August, before 11:59 p.m.
Weighting: 30%
Length and Format: 1800 words +/- 10% (excluding Reference list)
Assessment Details: Please read the case study which is in the Canvas site in the assignment section and then carefully address the questions at the end of the brief.
Each question should be copied and pasted and then the corresponding answer should be written directly after.
Please write your answers in paragraphs.
In addressing each of the questions you should be demonstrating your engagement and understanding of the Business Communication literature by providing consistent intext references/citations to support your claims.
There should also be a reference list at the end of your document in APA style.
Please note, you will not pass if you do not engage in appropriate research, provide a reference list and consistent intext references
Advice on Submission Please complete a first draft of your assignment at least 24 hours prior to the due date and upload your completed activity electronically by clicking onto the Academic Integrity Activity Upload tab in the Assignments section of Canvas. You will receive a report from the Turnitin site on the extent to which any sections of your answer 'match' either published material or other student assignments.
Take this as an opportunity to revise your paper and resubmit. If you do not upload a first draft well in advance of the cut off time you will not have the opportunity to make any changes.
All submissions must be uploaded as a MicroSoft word file. PDF files will not be accepted for marking
Assessment addresses SLOs SLO A: Understand communication theory and its implications for individual and organisational performance
SLO B: Analysis of key communication issues in organisation and compare the relative importance of the factors contributing to effective organizational
Marking Criteria Please refer to Marking Rubric on Canvas
communicating-during-crisis-lessons-crisis-management-mitigation-case.pdfDownload communicating-during-crisis-lessons-crisis-management-mitigation-case.pdf
Rubric
Individual Case Study
Individual Case Study
Criteria Ratings
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeKnowledge and Understanding
Knowledge and Understanding of:- Key theoretical perspectives and concepts in interpersonal communication 1. Developing (Fail)
- Limited to repeating required concepts and knowledge - Cannot discuss concepts in own words 2. Functional (Pass)
- Demonstrates rote learning and knowledge - Has adequate breadth but limited depth of understanding 3. Proficient (Credit)
- Shows breadth and depth of understanding - Can use terminology accurately in new contexts - Can express others ideas in their own words 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Shows advanced breadth and depth of understanding - Can generate and justify arguments using the knowledge that has been gained
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReasoning
Reasoning in terms of:- Identifying the key issues in the case- Determining how the issues in the case affect interpersonal communication and organisational performance 1. Developing (Fail)
- Uses personal reasoning not based specifically to the case - Unable to demonstrate that key issues have been identified 2. Functional (Pass)
- Derived largely from existing sources (texts, lecturers etc) - Little interpretation or translation 3. Proficient (Credit)
- Can recognise competing explanations - Can identify the relative merits and limitations of an argument - Can describe and defend view or position 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Uses principles to create and defend arguments - Can express where their arguments might be limited and why
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
Analysis in terms of:- Understanding of the contemporary issues faced by practitioners in the case study.- The organisational environment and its relationship to the quality of communications in the organisation.- The outcomes of the case and what this means for the respective parties 1. Developing (Fail)
- Shows no real analysis - Unable to form opinions on the case 2. Functional (Pass)
- Descriptive with limited use of theories and concepts - Limited capacity to synthesis several ideas into a larger argument 3. Proficient (Credit)
- Can break large ideas, situations and problems into smaller pieces - Can synthesis several concepts into a larger idea - Can evaluate the limitations of arguments 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Analysis shows a balance of theory and personal reflection - Can apply ideas to other contexts and situations
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Academic Resources
Use of Academic Resources in terms of:- Being able to locate relevant academic sources and use it to form the basis of an argument- Being able to distinguish between critical information versus information provided for background 1. Developing (Fail)
- Does not use scholarly resources 2. Functional (Pass)
-Makes reference to scholarly theories or authors presented in lessons and in provided sources with little or no explanation or justification 3. Proficient (Credit)
-Cites specific scholarly theories or authors and explains their relevance to the question being considered 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Shows evidence of having independently identified, read and understood context appropriate scholarly resources
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Writing and Conventions
Academic writing and conventions in terms of:- Accurate citations and referencing- Structure of the work- Use of grammar 1. Developing (Fail)
- Fails to demonstrate an understanding of what is expected in the document, no use of spell check, poor grammar and/or no logical structure 2. Functional (Pass)
-Adheres to most basic expectations regarding the formatting and presentation of the work - Has a logical structure including introduction, main body, conclusion and reference list - Spellchecked and grammatically correct 3. Proficient (Credit)
-Meets almost all expectations and conventions - References are cited correctly and accurately - Arguments are logical to follow 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Meets all expectations and conventions - Referencing is accurate both in text and following the prescribed referencing method in the list of references - Arguments are well presented and easy to follow
Assignment Overview
Assessment 1: Individual Case Study Analysis
Students will be required to examine and analyse the prescribed case study on Canvas and answer the questions at the end of the brief. The answers should demonstrate understanding of the subject theory and concepts.
Due date: Sunday of Week 6, 28th of August, before 11:59 p.m.
Weighting: 30%
Length and Format: 1800 words +/- 10% (excluding Reference list)
Assessment Details: Please read the case study which is in the Canvas site in the assignment section and then carefully address the questions at the end of the brief.
Each question should be copied and pasted and then the corresponding answer should be written directly after.
Please write your answers in paragraphs.
In addressing each of the questions you should be demonstrating your engagement and understanding of the Business Communication literature by providing consistent intext references/citations to support your claims.
There should also be a reference list at the end of your document in APA style.
Please note, you will not pass if you do not engage in appropriate research, provide a reference list and consistent intext references
Advice on Submission Please complete a first draft of your assignment at least 24 hours prior to the due date and upload your completed activity electronically by clicking onto the Academic Integrity Activity Upload tab in the Assignments section of Canvas. You will receive a report from the Turnitin site on the extent to which any sections of your answer 'match' either published material or other student assignments.
Take this as an opportunity to revise your paper and resubmit. If you do not upload a first draft well in advance of the cut off time you will not have the opportunity to make any changes.
All submissions must be uploaded as a MicroSoft word file. PDF files will not be accepted for marking
Assessment addresses SLOs SLO A: Understand communication theory and its implications for individual and organisational performance
SLO B: Analysis of key communication issues in organisation and compare the relative importance of the factors contributing to effective organizational
Marking Criteria Please refer to Marking Rubric on Canvas
communicating-during-crisis-lessons-crisis-management-mitigation-case.pdfDownload communicating-during-crisis-lessons-crisis-management-mitigation-case.pdf
Rubric
Individual Case Study
Individual Case Study
Criteria Ratings
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeKnowledge and Understanding
Knowledge and Understanding of:- Key theoretical perspectives and concepts in interpersonal communication 1. Developing (Fail)
- Limited to repeating required concepts and knowledge - Cannot discuss concepts in own words 2. Functional (Pass)
- Demonstrates rote learning and knowledge - Has adequate breadth but limited depth of understanding 3. Proficient (Credit)
- Shows breadth and depth of understanding - Can use terminology accurately in new contexts - Can express others ideas in their own words 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Shows advanced breadth and depth of understanding - Can generate and justify arguments using the knowledge that has been gained
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReasoning
Reasoning in terms of:- Identifying the key issues in the case- Determining how the issues in the case affect interpersonal communication and organisational performance 1. Developing (Fail)
- Uses personal reasoning not based specifically to the case - Unable to demonstrate that key issues have been identified 2. Functional (Pass)
- Derived largely from existing sources (texts, lecturers etc) - Little interpretation or translation 3. Proficient (Credit)
- Can recognise competing explanations - Can identify the relative merits and limitations of an argument - Can describe and defend view or position 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Uses principles to create and defend arguments - Can express where their arguments might be limited and why
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
Analysis in terms of:- Understanding of the contemporary issues faced by practitioners in the case study.- The organisational environment and its relationship to the quality of communications in the organisation.- The outcomes of the case and what this means for the respective parties 1. Developing (Fail)
- Shows no real analysis - Unable to form opinions on the case 2. Functional (Pass)
- Descriptive with limited use of theories and concepts - Limited capacity to synthesis several ideas into a larger argument 3. Proficient (Credit)
- Can break large ideas, situations and problems into smaller pieces - Can synthesis several concepts into a larger idea - Can evaluate the limitations of arguments 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Analysis shows a balance of theory and personal reflection - Can apply ideas to other contexts and situations
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Academic Resources
Use of Academic Resources in terms of:- Being able to locate relevant academic sources and use it to form the basis of an argument- Being able to distinguish between critical information versus information provided for background 1. Developing (Fail)
- Does not use scholarly resources 2. Functional (Pass)
-Makes reference to scholarly theories or authors presented in lessons and in provided sources with little or no explanation or justification 3. Proficient (Credit)
-Cites specific scholarly theories or authors and explains their relevance to the question being considered 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Shows evidence of having independently identified, read and understood context appropriate scholarly resources
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Writing and Conventions
Academic writing and conventions in terms of:- Accurate citations and referencing- Structure of the work- Use of grammar 1. Developing (Fail)
- Fails to demonstrate an understanding of what is expected in the document, no use of spell check, poor grammar and/or no logical structure 2. Functional (Pass)
-Adheres to most basic expectations regarding the formatting and presentation of the work - Has a logical structure including introduction, main body, conclusion and reference list - Spellchecked and grammatically correct 3. Proficient (Credit)
-Meets almost all expectations and conventions - References are cited correctly and accurately - Arguments are logical to follow 4. Advanced (Distinction or above)
- Meets all expectations and conventions - Referencing is accurate both in text and following the prescribed referencing method in the list of references - Arguments are well presented and easy to follow
