IF3058QA

32519619016961264860892696126483403727

IF3058QA

Assignment

Due: Monday 11th March 2024, @3PM

Task

Write a portfolio of three reflective pieces.

Word count: 1500 words

Weighting: 100%

Submit by: 3:00pm Monday 11th March 2024.

Instructions

What is a Portfolio?

A collection of work samples usually displaying what the author is capable of.

Why do we make portfolios?

Portfolios can help you clearly define your strengths and weaknesses. For many majors, portfolios are a must-have in order to demonstrate your skills and abilities to employers. A well-developed portfolio helps you to be better prepared for your job search. Portfolio development is the process by which a student documents and demonstrates academic-level competencies (knowledge and skills) acquired in environments and agencies inside & outside the traditional higher education classroom. Some advantages of creating a portfolio include:

it is a professional Way to Showcase Your Work. It's A Great First Impression for Employers.

Increases Your Visibility and Online Presence. Shows You're More Than Just a Resume.

Flexibility.

32519619016961264810277856

What reflective model to use?

For this assignment, use the three-stage reflective model. Which consists of the what? So what? And now what?

What?

Introduce the main purpose of the case study and briefly outline the overall problem to be solved.

So what?

Write a brief description of the case under discussion giving an outline of the main issues involved. Always assume that your reader knows nothing of the assignment task and provide enough information to give a context for your discussion of the issues.

Now what?

Discuss the issues raised one by one, using information gained from your research of the academic literature.

You should also precede your three reflective pieces with an introduction (before) and a conclusion after the third piece before a reference list.

See the samples provided.

Watch the video on how to create a reflective piece.

Follow the sessions on how to create arguments.

Follow the sessions on how to critically analyse.

When you have finished, get feedback from your lecturer on your draft.

Check your similarity score to ensure it is no more that 10%. Any similarity score that is above 35% will mean that your work will not be marked and your work will be flagged for academic misconduct. Please study the following documents

1. Quick guide to referencing

2. Section 15- academic misconduct guide.

3. If you remain unclear on how to reference, please book an appointment with the ACE team to support you.

359662-850317Assessment Rubrics

PASS

A 1st80+ Outstand ing

(at publish-able standard*)

70 - 79 Excellent pass

Engagement with, and understanding of, content.

(Ability to meet task brief) Comprehensively addresses

all aspects of task brief. Excellent evidence of engagement with and understanding of module content. Excellent evidence of independent follow up work.

In-depth addressing of task brief. Very good evidence of engagement with and understanding of module content. Very good evidence of independent follow up work.

Quality of critical analysis

Excellent critical reflection via skilful application of a theories and evidence. Insightful analysis and linking to module themes/concepts. Excellent evidence of specific learning outcomes and application to future.

Very good, meaningful critical analysis via very effective application of theories, models, and evidence. Strong analysis and linking to module themes/concepts. Very good identification of specific learning outcomes and application to future.

Communication(language, referencing, structuring of ideas, optionally via visuals)

Excellent, fluent and clear expression throughout. Excellent, logical and coherent structuring of ideas. Excellent referencing with no inaccuracies. Fluent integration of source material.

Fluently, clearly and well expressed. Only very minor language errors. Very good, logical and coherent structuring of ideas. Very good referencing and integration of source material. Only very minor referencing inaccuracies.

B 2.1 61 - 69

Good pass

C 2.2 51 - 60

Satisfactory pass

D 3rd 46 - 50

Adequate pass

Effectively addresses task brief. Good evidence of engagement with and understanding of module content. Some evidence of independent follow up work.

Broadly addresses task brief. Some evidence of engagement with and understanding of module content. Evidence of independent follow up work may be limited or vague.

Attempts to address task brief, but with omissions or misunderstandings. Some engagement with module content, but may be superficial or lacking understanding.

Good critical analysis via effective application of theories, models, and evidence. Good analysis and linking to module themes/concepts. Good identification of specific learning outcomes.

Reasonable attempt at thoughtful analysis with some awareness of how to apply theories, models, and evidence. Some attempt to link to module themes/concepts, though needs more development or precision. Some clear evidence of learning.

Some reflection achieved, but needed to apply theories, models, and evidence more effectively. May be too descriptive. Lacks analysis and clear linking to module themes/concepts. Learning outcomes need clearer identification.

Clearly communicated. Minor language errors. Good, clear structuring and organising of ideas. Good referencing/integration of source material, though may include some inaccurate citation.

Meaning generally clear but not consistently fluent. Minor language errors which do not significantly affect understanding.

Clear structure with some organisation of ideas.

Majority of referencing/integration of sources as required. Some incomplete or missing citations.

Meaning generally clear, though language errors, at times, make work difficult to understand. Adequate, but sometimes inconsistent structure and organisation of ideas.

Referencing not always as required. Incomplete or missing sources.

E3rd 40 - 45 Basic pass

Notionally, very superficiallyLimited attempt at reflection. or vaguely addresses taskLargely descriptive or requirements, but withinadequately developed, substantiallacking any linking to module misunderstandings orthemes/concepts. Notional omissions. A bare minimumevidence learning.

level of engagement with

the module is evidenced.

Meaning not always clear. Errors which frequently make work difficult to understand. Limited structure with erratic organisation and signposting. Referencing inaccurate. Incomplete or missing sources

FAILF1 25-39 Fail

F2

0-24 Inadequate

Does not address or only minimally addresses task brief, e.g. significantly incomplete or totally off-task and unrelated to module. Little or no understanding or engagement.

No attempt at addressing of task brief

Minimal critical reflection achieved.

No critical reflection.

Communication limited/meaning often unintelligible. Very limited structure. Very limited referencing, not in required format.

No/too little communication to evaluate. No structure, organisation or referencing.

32519619016961264819326856126481365757

IF3058 REFLECTING ON SELF AND SOCIETY

ASSIGNMNET TEMPLATE

Student ID no. NAME Student email address Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................5

REFLECTION 1 .....................................................................................................................................5 Title:................................................................................................................................................5 WHAT..............................................................................................................................................5 SO WHAT.........................................................................................................................................5 NOW WHAT? ..................................................................................................................................5 REFLECTION 2 .....................................................................................................................................6 Title:................................................................................................................................................6 WHAT...............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. SO WHAT..........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. NOW WHAT? ...................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. REFLECTION 3 .....................................................................................................................................7 Title:................................................................................................................................................7 WHAT...............................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. SO WHAT..........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. NOW WHAT? ...................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................8 REFERENCE LIST......................................................................................................................................8 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................9 APPENDIX 1.........................................................................................................................................9 APPENDIX 1.........................................................................................................................................9 APPENDIX 1.........................................................................................................................................9

681226-843492(Replace guiding text in each section with your own)

INTRODUCTION(10% word count 100 words)

Rationale (hook) what fact struck you during your studies / research? What did you find funny? What quote did you find interesting?

Scope (context) what issues / artefacts will you be focusing on? Which areas have you identified in the article but do not wish to include in your discussion?

Structure (thesis statement) what claim will you make? What question will your essay answer?

REFLECTION 1

Title:

WHAT(10% word count)

1. Describe the event or experience.

a.Do not make judgments yet or try to draw conclusions; simply describe. For example. b.What happened?

c.Who was involved?

d.What part did you/others play? e.What was the result?

2. Link it to yourself.

SO WHAT? (65% word count)

601802032710884402014951. State or analyse one viewpoint with evidence. Link to self-identity & or society (a-f may not all apply in every case)

a.What was significant about this experience to me?

b.What was I thinking and feeling during the experience? c.What was I trying to achieve?

d. How do I feel about the outcome of the event? e. What was good and bad about the experience?

f.What were the consequences of my action/actions of others?

16431262014972. State or analyse the opposite side of that viewpoint with evidence. Link to self-identity & or society. (a-g may not all apply in every case)

a.What sense can I make of the situation?

b.What factors (e.g., values, assumptions, meaning perspective, experiences) c.influenced my feelings, thoughts, and actions?

d.What sources of knowledge influenced or should have influenced my actions? e.How did others feel and how do I know how they feel?

f.What could I have done differently?

g.What would be the consequences of those other actions?

3. Resolve the conflict between the two opposing viewpoints with evidence.

NOW WHAT?(25% word count)

1. What did you learn? How has your learning changed you? a.How do I now feel about the experience?

b.What have I learned about my practice/myself/my organizations?

2. What - will you do / have you done - differently because of this experience?

325196190169

a.What would I do now in a similar situation?

b.What factors might get in the way of me applying my learning from the experience? 3. What will be different in the future?

REFLECTION 2

Title:

WHAT(10% word count)

3. Describe the event or experience.

a.Do not make judgments yet or try to draw conclusions; simply describe. For example. b.What happened?

c.Who was involved?

d.What part did you/others play? e.What was the result?

4. Link it to yourself.

SO WHAT? (65% word count)

601802032710884401999714. State or analyse one viewpoint with evidence. Link to self-identity & or society (a-f may not all apply in every case)

a.What was significant about this experience to me?

b.What was I thinking and feeling during the experience? c.What was I trying to achieve?

d. How do I feel about the outcome of the event? e. What was good and bad about the experience?

f.What were the consequences of my action/actions of others?

16431261999715. State or analyse the opposite side of that viewpoint with evidence. Link to self-identity & or society. (a-g may not all apply in every case)

a.What sense can I make of the situation?

b.What factors (e.g., values, assumptions, meaning perspective, experiences) c.influenced my feelings, thoughts, and actions?

d.What sources of knowledge influenced or should have influenced my actions? e.How did others feel and how do I know how they feel?

f.What could I have done differently?

g.What would be the consequences of those other actions?

6. Resolve the conflict between the two opposing viewpoints with evidence.

NOW WHAT?(25% word count)

4. What did you learn? How has your learning changed you? a.How do I now feel about the experience?

b.What have I learned about my practice/myself/my organizations?

5. What - will you do / have you done - differently because of this experience? a.What would I do now in a similar situation?

b.What factors might get in the way of me applying my learning from the experience? 6. What will be different in the future?

325196190169

REFLECTION 3

Title:

WHAT(10% word count)

5. Describe the event or experience.

a.Do not make judgments yet or try to draw conclusions; simply describe. For example. b.What happened?

c.Who was involved?

d.What part did you/others play? e.What was the result?

6. Link it to yourself.

SO WHAT? (65% word count)

601802032710884402014957. State or analyse one viewpoint with evidence. Link to self-identity & or society (a-f may not all apply in every case)

a.What was significant about this experience to me?

b.What was I thinking and feeling during the experience? c.What was I trying to achieve?

d. How do I feel about the outcome of the event? e. What was good and bad about the experience?

f.What were the consequences of my action/actions of others?

16431262014958. State or analyse the opposite side of that viewpoint with evidence. Link to self-identity & or society. (a-g may not all apply in every case)

a.What sense can I make of the situation?

b.What factors (e.g., values, assumptions, meaning perspective, experiences) c.influenced my feelings, thoughts, and actions?

d.What sources of knowledge influenced or should have influenced my actions? e.How did others feel and how do I know how they feel?

f.What could I have done differently?

g.What would be the consequences of those other actions?

9. Resolve the conflict between the two opposing viewpoints with evidence.

NOW WHAT?(25% word count)

7. What did you learn? How has your learning changed you? a.How do I now feel about the experience?

b.What have I learned about my practice/myself/my organizations?

8. What - will you do / have you done - differently because of this experience? a.What would I do now in a similar situation?

b.What factors might get in the way of me applying my learning from the experience? 9. What will be different in the future?

325196190169

3595751224718CONCLUSION(10% word count 150) Summarise the issues and your discussion (100 words).

Reiterate your preferred choice.

REFERENCE LIST

Abraham, C and S Michie 2007. A taxonomy of behaviour change techniques used in interventions [in press].

Ajzen, I 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179-211.

Anable, J, B Lane and T Kelay 2006. An Evidence Base Review of Public Attitudes to Climate Change and Transport Behaviour. The UK Energy Research Centre et al for the Department for Transport.

Argyris, C and D Schon 1996. Organizational Learning II. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

Bedford, T 2002. Sustainable Lifestyles Report 1. Tracey Bedford at the University of Westminster for the DfT New Horizons Research Programme.

Berglund, C and S Matti 2006. Citizen and Consumer: the dual role of individuals in environmental policy. Environmental Politics 15 (4) 550-71.

Brooks, M, A Darnton, J Elster-Jones and K Lucas 2006. Promoting Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Existing Evidence to Inform Better Policy Making, Chapter 2: Review of Policy Instruments. London: Defra.

Brown, R 2004. Local Institutional Development and Organisational Change for Advancing Sustainable Water Futures. Keynote Address in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design: Cities as Catchments, November 2004, Adelaide, Australia.

Burgess, J and M Nye 2006. Interim Report II on Sustainable Waste Behaviours of GAP EcoTeams Participants. Jacqui Burgess and Michael Nye at the Centre for Global Risk at the University of East Anglia for Defra Waste R&D Programme.

Canter, D, L Alison, E Alison and N Wentink 2004. The Organized / Disorganized Typology of Serial Murder: Myth or Model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 10 (3), 293320. Canter, D. and K Fritzon 1998. Differentiating arsonists: A model of firesetting actions and characteristics. Legal and Criminological Psychology 3, 73-96.

Carver, C and M Scheier 1982. Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin 92 (1), 111-135.

Chapman, J 2004. System Failure (2nd edition). London: Demos. Chapman, J 2007. Learning Systems Thinking [draft].

Cialdini, R, R Reno and C Kallgren 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(6) 1015-1026.

(Replace text in this section with your own)

325196190169

APPENDICES

(Appendix 1 should pertain to reflection1, appendix 2 should pertain to reflection 2 and appendix 3 should pertain to reflection 3 only. Where you have used an artefact for appendix 1 but not for 2 and then for 3, then leave appendix 2 blank stating that there are no artefacts for this reflection.)

Where you have used more than one artefact for a reflection, please label them 1a, 1b, 1c etc.

APPENDIX 1

(Title or name of appendix)

APPENDIX 1

(Title or name of appendix)

APPENDIX 1

(Title or name of appendix)