Unit 09: Empowering Users in Health and Social Care
March 14, 2018MKT4132 Product Management Strategies (Assessment II)
March 15, 2018Details of Assessment Tasks
- Assessment task 1: Critical reflection
| Assessment Title | Critical reflection |
| Task Description | Through this assessment, you will understand the concept of self and the role of self in the context of professional practice. To achieve this, you are required to write two reflective “diary” entries for two different healthcare experiences that you have had. These should not be procedures such as how to perform hand hygiene or how to administer medications. They may be from a workplace experience, employment in a healthcare setting, experience as a patient or client of a health service or a healthcare experience of a family member or friend in which you were involved. The experience should have an issue or problem that you would like to learn more about through critical reflection and research so that you arrive at a new understanding about your therapeutic use of self.
Each diary entry describing the experience should be no longer than 250 words. Headings should be used to format this assessment. You may write diary entries using the first person “I”. To maintain confidentiality of participants and facilities, you are required to de-identify people and places by using pseudonyms. All diary entries will be treated as private and confidential documents. Following each diary entry, you are required to complete a Level 1(300 words), Level 2 (400 words) and Level 3 (300 words) analysis (see Borton’s analysis framework (Rolfe, Jasper et al. 2011) available on NMIH303 Moodle site). Please do not use any other reflection model. An example of a diary entry is available on Moodle. The word count is inclusive of in-text references but excludes the reference list. Please note that Level 2 of the framework requires you to address how and why the issue/problem occurred and what other knowledge you could now apply. This will involve conducting a search of the literature so that you develop a new understanding of the issue/problem you are reflecting upon. Within this section, you will demonstrate effective literature searching skills and the ability to consolidate, critically analyse and critique evidence. Therefore, you are required to use as many references as you need to comprehensively reflect on the experience described. |
| Assessment Due Date | Friday 30th March 2018 by 23.55 hrs
|
| Return Date to Students | 15 working days after the submission date |
| Weighting | 50%
|
| Length | 2500 words |
| Assessment Criteria | See marking rubric. |
| Referencing Style | Author – Date (Harvard)
A summary of the Harvard system can be accessed in the online guide on the Library website at: http://public01.library.uow.edu.au/refcite/style-guides/html/ |
| Submission | Electronic copy via turnitin drop box on eLearning (MOODLE)
|
| Subject Learning Outcomes Assessed | 1-3, 5-6
|
NMIH 303 Rubric: Assessment 1 Reflection
| Weighting/
Criteria |
HIGH DISTINCTION
Exemplary |
DISTINCTION
Exceeds expectation |
CREDIT
Above expectations |
PASS
Meets expectations |
FAIL
Under-developed |
FAIL
Absent/ Inadequate |
| 5%
Diary Entry: 250 words (Each) |
Issue/problem is clearly articulated and presents detailed explanation of participants and context of the experience. Eloquent academic writing skills, | Meaning and context are clear and engaging. Evidence of superior academic writing skills.
|
Specific descriptors of experience provided. Writing style is clear and succinct. | Participants and facilities are de-identified. Diary entry presents an experience reflecting on the therapeutic use of self. Evidence of sound academic writing. | Participants and facilities not de-identified. Diary entry presents a procedure and not an experience reflecting on the therapeutic use of self. Language hinders the effective flow of ideas and meaning. | Journal entry not provided |
| 20%
LEVEL 1: Descriptive Level 300 words (Each) Demonstrates evidence of critical reflection. That is, identifies: •Issue/problem. •Own role/actions in situation. •Response of others. •Consequences. •Feelings evoked. •What was good/bad about experience. |
Exemplary understanding of the concept of self and role of self. Personal assumptions and values are reflected upon in light of other’s perspectives. Sophisticated communication of information supported by contemporary literature. | Superior understanding of the concept of self and role of self. Fluent communication of information supported by evidence. Discussion provides sufficient depth to ensure reflection is meaningfully. | Reflection goes beyond descriptive replication. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and logical manner. | All criteria are addressed. Descriptive replication of experience. Concept of self and role of self considered | Does not meet minimum requirements. Some criteria not addressed or is rudimentary. Personal insight of self not provided. | Fails to address all criteria Response fails to demonstrate evidence of reflection. |
| 30%
LEVEL 2: Theory and knowledge building 400 words (Each) Demonstrates use of evidence and other knowledge through a systematic and logical critical reflection. That is: •Identified learning •Use of evidence/other knowledge •Identified alternative actions •Describes new understanding •Identified broader issues arising from situation |
Outstanding analysis and critique of supporting literature. Viewpoints and interpretations are insightful and well supported. Multiple citations are used to support single ideas. | Superior critique around new knowledge that the student brings to the situation. Superior analysis and critique of a broad range of high quality primary research that support discussion. | Solid evidence of critical reflection and presentation of new knowledge. Demonstrates sound literature searching skills. Sources are consistently cited that support discussion. Other studies are drawn on, and evidence is provided on how they support new knowledge about the issue/problem. | All criteria are addressed. Sound critical reflection presenting new knowledge. Adequate communication of information. | Does not meet minimum requirement. Does not address all criteria. Elementary review of the literature. Fails to present new knowledge | All criteria not addressed. Response fails to demonstrate new knowledge or evidence of literature searching skills. |
| 20%
LEVEL 3: Action-orientated 300 words (Each) Demonstrates an ability to evaluate Therapeutic Use of Self by reflecting on action and suggesting ways of improving the situation. That is: •Identified changes to be made •Identified broader issues •Identified consequences •Provides concluding statement/s. |
Outstanding evaluation of the therapeutic use of self. Outstanding reflection and critique of actions demonstrating insight and evaluation of professional development. Evidence is provided that shows reflection has changed practices | Superior reflection and critique of actions. Superior evaluation of therapeutic use of self. Evidence of professional development supported by the literature. | Detailed reflection on actions and broader issues. Concluding statement is detailed and evaluates therapeutic use of self in the context of new learning. | All criteria are addressed. Reflects on actions and broader issues. Concluding statement evaluates therapeutic use of self in the context of new learning. | Does not meet minimum requirements. Not all criteria addressed. Rudimentary evaluation of therapeutic use of self and concluding statement. | Most criteria not addressed. No attempt to reflect or improve on actions. No evidence of supporting literature. No concluding statement. |
| Academic Writing
15% |
Correct spelling, grammar, and syntax is used throughout. There are logical connections between ideas that enhance the structure, synthesis and readability. That is; Introductory sentence used at the start of paragraphs. Main subject matter is developed within each paragraph. Concluding sentence used at the end of paragraphs. Meets all UOW style requirements. Uses headings, adheres to word count. | The majority of sentences are well constructed and have varied structure and length. There are very minor errors in grammar, mechanics and/or spelling but they do not impede flow of ideas and meaning; Complies with UOW style guide. . +/- 10% of word count | Most sentences contain a single concrete thought or idea. Minor errors noted in spelling and grammar but flow of ideas and meaning remain clear. The presentation is clear and easy to read. Complies with UOW style guide. +/- 10% of word count | Headings used. Evidence of sound academic writing. That is; Paragraphs are 3-5 sentences in length and sentences are clear and concise; Errors in spelling and grammar occasionally impede flow of ideas and meaning. Meets almost all style requirements including spacing, page numbers, font, headings, word count. | Inadequate evidence of academic writing. That is; Language hinders the effective flow of ideas and meaning. Sentences lack structure and are consistently too short or too long. Multiple errors in spelling and grammar. Does not adhere to word count. Does not comply with UOW style guide.
|
The writing tends to be disjointed. Spelling and/or grammar is consistently incorrect. The presentation is hard to read. |
| Referencing
10% |
A comprehensive and complete reference list is provided with accurate in text citations. Author-Date (Harvard) referencing guidelines have been met.
|
A comprehensive and complete reference list is provided. Author-Date (Harvard) referencing style is consistently accurate. Infrequent referencing errors include missing full-stops in ‘et al.’ in main text. | Author-Date (Harvard) referencing style has been used but minor errors are noted in either in text citations or reference list. For example, parentheses missing in the main text and italics missing from source titles in reference list. | It is evident that Author-Date (Harvard) is used but there are frequent errors in in text citations and/or reference list. | Multiple referencing errors. Inadequate resources drawn on to support discussion. That is, too many sentences have no citation to support statements made. Multiple errors in Author-Date (Harvard) style. | Author-Date (Harvard) referencing has not been used or the work is plagiarised. |
