REFLECTIVE REPORT

REFLECTIVE REPORT

Project description

include more concepts and theories and refer to them(they are all listed in the assignment’s guidance attached)

write what did i learn from the simulation game and i would have done differently another time.. i think all of the parts of the report lack of extras and the world limit should be 2000..
2): A reflective report.
The report takes the form of an academic paper, with a problem statement and executive summary/abstract. Its empirical content will come from analysing your personal experience from MEGA exercise.

Due Date to submit: Thursday 19th of February 2015 – 13.00 by electronic submission through turn-it-in on Blackboard (by 12:59). Format: Report with Harvard style referencing.

Word count: 2000 words? +/- 10%

Briefing:

Having undertaken the MEGA business simulation in a team from early October 2014 up to the end of December 2014, you are now required to write an individual report based on reflective analysis. This should contain the following

1.    An introductory discussion on how reflective practice techniques can be     useful to analysing your MEGA team experience.
2.    Use of relevant academic theories and concepts applied to the context of your     reflective analysis.
3.    An outline of critical incidents (positive and negative) that affected your team     and you as an individual
4.    Elaboration on the consequences of these incidents
5.    A concluding chapter on how the areas discussed previously have:
(i) Developed transferable skills (or not)
(ii) The influences that your learning experiences will have in any future organisational and team roles that you undertake.
(iii) You are encouraged to use relevant academic theories in your conclusions as well.
6.       You MUST include in the appendices the log-book/diary of your MEGA team meetings. Do not worry about the fact this part of the assignment would be the same for every team member. We are aware of this.

Assessment Criteria for assessment 2

?    Use and detail of critical incidents: 30%
?    Application of academic theories & concepts: 30%
?    Conclusions (Quality of critical insights): 30%
?    Structure, clarity & presentation of work: 10%

First Class Honours (70% +):
1.    A minimum of 10 unique references with implicit application of theory to the context of reflective analysis.
2.    A well laid out referencing system (Harvard Style), please refer to University guide.
3.    Clearly delineated critical incidents and use of critical incident methodology
4.    Very concise style of writing with clear flow & structure
5.    Strong evidence and application of reflection in action & reflection on action (Schon)
6.    Avoidance of descriptive narrative, except where necessary.
7.    The reflective analysis should leave room for concise but very effective conclusions on how the MEGA experience will impact your future in terms of team-working, professional life and transferable skills.

Upper 2-1 (65-69%):
As above, in 1-5 and still showing evidence of implicit analysis and good research but not quite as consistent as a First class or higher in this respect. Very competent work but probably lacking in that extra incisiveness, originality and quality of conclusions.

Marginal 2-1 (60-65%):
1.    A minimum of 6 unique references
2.    An adequate referencing system (Harvard style)
3.    Reasonable application of theory but sometimes too explicit and not as well applied as it could be to the context of your reflective analysis.
4.    Reasonable flow & structure.
5.    Your reflective analysis should show some application of both reflection in action & reflection on action (Schon)
6.    Some clear conclusions.
2-2 (50-59%):
As in 1-4 above but not enough application of theory (Too explicit) and overly descriptive but showing some evidence of reflection in parts.

Third class (40-49%):
Inclusion of some relevant references.  A limited application of theory but some evidence of self-reflection and covering the basics of the assignment.

Compensation level grade (35-39%):
Brief mention of some sources but without any application. Must show some evidence of self-reflection even if lacking in academic depth.

<35%:
No attempt whatsoever to follow the assignment guidelines and no evidence at all of valid self-reflection.

Important Guidelines

A report format is required with main headings and discussion. Avoid overly long paragraphs but also steer clear of writing a listing style report with too many sub-sections and bullet points. An executive summary/abstract should be included and is not part of the 2,000 word count. You can outline critical incidents in a table if you wish and this will also be excluded from the word count.

The 2,000 words include any narrative from the introduction to the conclusion excluding the use of 1-2 tables maximum. The ES/abstract and other sections are not included in the word count.

NB: Please put the name of both your seminar tutors on the front cover, as well as your seminar group (time and day). All assignments meeting the above requirements will be marked and feedback/marks will be posted on the first week of April 2014.

2): A reflective report.
The report takes the form of an academic paper, with a problem statement and executive summary/abstract. Its empirical content will come from analysing your personal experience from MEGA exercise.

Due Date to submit: Thursday 19th of February 2015 – 13.00 by electronic submission through turn-it-in on Blackboard (by 12:59). Format: Report with Harvard style referencing.

Word count: 2000 words? +/- 10%

Briefing:

Having undertaken the MEGA business simulation in a team from early October 2014 up to the end of December 2014, you are now required to write an individual report based on reflective analysis. This should contain the following

1.    An introductory discussion on how reflective practice techniques can be     useful to analysing your MEGA team experience.
2.    Use of relevant academic theories and concepts applied to the context of your     reflective analysis.
3.    An outline of critical incidents (positive and negative) that affected your team     and you as an individual
4.    Elaboration on the consequences of these incidents
5.    A concluding chapter on how the areas discussed previously have:
(i) Developed transferable skills (or not)
(ii) The influences that your learning experiences will have in any future organisational and team roles that you undertake.
(iii) You are encouraged to use relevant academic theories in your conclusions as well.
6.       You MUST include in the appendices the log-book/diary of your MEGA team meetings. Do not worry about the fact this part of the assignment would be the same for every team member. We are aware of this.

Assessment Criteria for assessment 2

?    Use and detail of critical incidents: 30%
?    Application of academic theories & concepts: 30%
?    Conclusions (Quality of critical insights): 30%
?    Structure, clarity & presentation of work: 10%

First Class Honours (70% +):
1.    A minimum of 10 unique references with implicit application of theory to the context of reflective analysis.
2.    A well laid out referencing system (Harvard Style), please refer to University guide.
3.    Clearly delineated critical incidents and use of critical incident methodology
4.    Very concise style of writing with clear flow & structure
5.    Strong evidence and application of reflection in action & reflection on action (Schon)
6.    Avoidance of descriptive narrative, except where necessary.
7.    The reflective analysis should leave room for concise but very effective conclusions on how the MEGA experience will impact your future in terms of team-working, professional life and transferable skills.

Upper 2-1 (65-69%):
As above, in 1-5 and still showing evidence of implicit analysis and good research but not quite as consistent as a First class or higher in this respect. Very competent work but probably lacking in that extra incisiveness, originality and quality of conclusions.

Marginal 2-1 (60-65%):
1.    A minimum of 6 unique references
2.    An adequate referencing system (Harvard style)
3.    Reasonable application of theory but sometimes too explicit and not as well applied as it could be to the context of your reflective analysis.
4.    Reasonable flow & structure.
5.    Your reflective analysis should show some application of both reflection in action & reflection on action (Schon)
6.    Some clear conclusions.
2-2 (50-59%):
As in 1-4 above but not enough application of theory (Too explicit) and overly descriptive but showing some evidence of reflection in parts.

Third class (40-49%):
Inclusion of some relevant references.  A limited application of theory but some evidence of self-reflection and covering the basics of the assignment.

Compensation level grade (35-39%):
Brief mention of some sources but without any application. Must show some evidence of self-reflection even if lacking in academic depth.

<35%:
No attempt whatsoever to follow the assignment guidelines and no evidence at all of valid self-reflection.

Important Guidelines

A report format is required with main headings and discussion. Avoid overly long paragraphs but also steer clear of writing a listing style report with too many sub-sections and bullet points. An executive summary/abstract should be included and is not part of the 2,000 word count. You can outline critical incidents in a table if you wish and this will also be excluded from the word count.

The 2,000 words include any narrative from the introduction to the conclusion excluding the use of 1-2 tables maximum. The ES/abstract and other sections are not included in the word count.

NB: Please put the name of both your seminar tutors on the front cover, as well as your seminar group (time and day). All assignments meeting the above requirements will be marked and feedback/marks will be posted on the first week of April 2014.