Hello there,
I have an assessment- Reflection Journal which is on Monday 13 May 2019 ( before mid-day). Word counts: 2000 words
It is a critical reflection on my subject so must use first person “I" in writing it, don’t need much referencing, only in one section.
Please check the requirement, also pls do not update it public as my private policy
For doing this assessment, you have to follow my guidance which includes in the attach files because it is kind of personal experiences so we can not make up the story. As the theories, the videos, the guest speaker; the in-class activities, my previous assessment feedback, and my psychometric test are real, so you must use it to write this one.
In the guidance file, in each section, I have a blue highlight of what to expect to write there, just follow it.
There is a psychometric test I have done, I will make it as one file for the questions answered, the test result will be attached in the guidance file.
Please check it and let's me know your best quote.
I’m looking forward to hearing from you
Jess
Assessment Information Subject Name: People, culture and contemporary leadership Assessment Title: Assessment 2 – Reflective Journal Word Count: 2,000 words Due Date: Monday of Week 9 at 11:55pm via Turnitin Assessment Description Throughout this subject, you have been exposed to many aspects of people, culture and contemporary leadership. An important part of undertaking postgraduate study, especially a subject like this one, is that you actively reflect on what you’ve been learning and how it could be applied in your life. This learning should have especially been most profound in the following ways: 1. The theories you were taught, such as those for recruitment and talent management. 2. The online resources you accessed, such as videos, podcasts and textbook chapters. 3. The industry guest in Week 6 who demonstrated the application of theory in the real world. 4. The in-class activities you participated in, such as discussions and cognitive exercises. 5. The assessment feedback you received following your performance in the first assignment. 6. The psychometric tests you completed, particularly for leadership and interpersonal traits. During this time, you should have been writing a weekly diary, chronicling your experiences – both positive and negative. It is now time to convert those diary entries into a reflective journal that answers the following question: What type of leader am I and how could I improve? To ensure success in your reflective essay, make certain you incorporate the following: · One example that resonated with you from each of the six categories noted above. · Paragraphs that don’t just describe your experiences but that critically analyse them, too. · Evidence that demonstrates not just your strengths as a leader but also your limitations. · Language in the ‘first person’ since this is very much a case study on you as an individual. · Areas for improvement supported by specific actions on how to enact those improvements. · Referencing that adheres to the Harvard format. Another consideration is that a reflective essay is different to an academic essay. This means: · You have some liberty to be creative in terms of the structure you wish to apply. · You can include experiences you’ve had in other subjects or in current or past jobs. · You should still be guided by the rubric on the next page, which determines your grade. Assessment Marking Rubric Criterion Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Academic theory (5 marks) Theory is either missing or wrongly portrayed, with references absent or limited. The writing style is challenging. The theory is only briefly described, quotes are excessive, and there is limited self-analysis on how it applies to the student. The theory is compelling but further elaboration, such as critical reflection and solid referencing, is still required. Theory is impressive and referencing is close to the mark but the writing style still needs minor improvements. The theory is correctly described in the student’s own well- written words, with excellent references to relevant scholars. Online resources (5 marks) The online resources are not included or are discussed without an obvious application to the student’s own leadership style. The online resources are discussed superficially without the critical analysis required of a postgraduate student. The online resources are discussed well, but greater self-analysis is required. Language, too, needs more coherence. The online resources are masterfully and analytically analysed but minor issues, such as language, preclude a higher mark. The online resources are discussed in expert language and self- analysis. The student has clearly engaged with the material. Industry guest (5 marks) The student did not attend the industry guest session or does not demonstrate an understanding of the messages conveyed. The student’s interaction with the industry guest was passive and the learning derived from the session superficial. The student enjoyed the session with the industry guest but critical self- analysis is lacking and the writing style in parts is difficult to follow. The industry guest clearly had an impact on the student, as evidenced by a high level of self-reflection and critical thinking. The student evidently engaged with the industry guest, not just via this reflective journal but in the classroom, too. In-class activities (5 marks) The student rarely attended class and the activities outlined here are therefore different to what transpired in the classroom. The student didn’t attend all classes and was mostly passive, hence why this section seems vague and only slightly sufficient. The student has made a good effort to link the activities with learning, but obvious gaps exist in terms of language and coherence. The student clearly derived value from the activities and has linked them strongly to self-analysis. Minor improvements needed. The student was not just present in class but also a valuable contributor, and this is obvious in the detailed and intelligent analysis. Assessment feedback (5 marks) The student has not referred to the first assessment or has not demonstrated how this latest submission has improved as a result. The student has briefly referred to the feedback but does not appear to have incorporated it in this latest submission. The student has covered the feedback and has made a good attempt to improve on it in this latest submission, but more detail is needed. The student has clearly taken on board the feedback and has since made obvious changes to this second assessment. The specific feedback the student received in the first assessment is entirely unneeded in this latest submission. A sterling effort. Psychometric tests (5 marks) The student has not completed any psychometric tests or has not discussed them with enough substance. The student has undertaken the tests but hasn’t conducted the critical self-analysis required of a postgraduate subject. The student’s tests are interesting and the self-analysis is present but it is not clear the results have resulted in personal change. The student’s tests are analysed thoroughly and personal change is obvious. Problems with language prohibit further marks. The student hasn’t just described the results of the test thoroughly but also clearly embraced the results and made personal changes. Areas for improvement (5 marks) The areas for improvement are either missing or unrelated to the key question, and neither are they supported by research. The areas for improvement and supporting research are presented, but they are not convincing or well connected. Whilst improvement is needed, there is a solid attempt at linking the areas for improvement with the relevant theories. The areas for improvement and evidence are of a high standard but would be more convincing if worded more clearly. There is no doubt, by the way the areas for improvement and evidence are presented, that these will be resolved.