Journal Discussions
Length: each of four Journal item discussions Min. of 200 – max. pf 400.
Due: Journal 1 – 11.00pm Sun of Week 2 Journal 2 –11.00pm Sun of Week 5 Journal 3 –11.00pm Sun of Week 9 Journal 4 –11.00pm Sun of Week 11
Format: Discussion board journal posts reflecting upon items set by the Unit Assessor for that Journal task.
Weighting: 25% of total unit marks.
Submission: In the PROJ5005 Discussion Board
Referencing: Harvard (in-text and Reference List)
Brief
- The Unit Assessor will post (in the Assessment Task and Submissions folder) the task for each of the four Journal Discussion items. The task will be specific to the content taught in the Week/s immediately before the due time for submission, and will be designed to reinforce your learning of a key aspect of Stakeholder thinking.
- The timing of when each is due in your Session may be adjusted to better align with other Assessment tasks, holidays etc.
- For guidance as to the style of writing a reflective journal please read the SCU guide at the following site
- Your journal reflections are to be a critical analysis of your developing knowledge and insights as to the importance of the stakeholder and your stakeholder management skills in your being an effective engineer.
- In order to achieve the highest mark for this assignment, you must provide a journal reflection for each of the 4 posts which is built around a minimum of two peer- reviewed academic references for each post.
General guiding information for the Journal posts:
- Start writing early
- As each Journal task will require you to go beyond the Unit materials you must access readings, websites, articles, academic literature and industry and government publications, typically using the internet.
- Please ensure that you access the Library and seek one-on-one assistance from the Library experts.
- Focus on the current literature, industry and government publications i.e. 2010 to 2018.
- As discussed in class you must read widely and deeply.
- Remember to critically think about engineering infrastructure when looking for sources.
- A Reference list is to be placed on the end of the post.
- Please review the following marking guide (Rubric) so that you can understand and meet all the requirements.
- Please ensure that your document is written legibly so that it will be acceptable in an academic and industry context.
| PROJ5005 Assessment 2 Journal | ||||
| Excellent 85%‒100% | Very Good 75%‒84% | Good 65%‒74% | Satisfactory 50%‒64% | Unacceptable 0%‒49% |
| Structure: | ||||
| Very comprehensive | Comprehensive and | Had a sound structure | Generally suitable | Structure not at all |
| and had excellent | had very sound | and appropriate | structure although some | suited to assessment |
| structure with no | structure with some | content but with some | aspects could have | requirements. |
| errors. 20/100 | errors. | errors. | been improved | |
| Response to | Responded directly | Responded directly to | Responded directly to | Taken as a whole, |
| assigned topic: | to the topic and to | the topic and to every | the topic but with some | the paper did not |
| Responded directly | every separate part | separate part of the | digressions and | respond adequately |
| to the topic and to | of the topic in a | topic in a reasonably | irrelevancies. Some | to the topic. Important |
| every separate part | balanced manner | balanced manner, | aspects of the topic | aspects were |
| of the topic in an | with minimal | perhaps with a small | were not developed | overlooked and/or |
| exceptionally | irrelevant material. | amount of irrelevant | properly and some less | much of the material |
| balanced manner | material and some | important aspects may | was irrelevant. | |
| with no irrelevant | issues not properly | have been overlooked. | ||
| material. 30/100 | developed. | |||
| Grasp of core unit | ||||
| theory: | Demonstrated deep, | Demonstrated | Sound grasp of unit | One or more |
| Demonstrated deep, | accurate | accurate | principles and concepts, | important unit |
| accurate | understanding of | understanding of unit | perhaps one- | concepts or principles |
| understanding of unit | unit principles and | principles and | dimensional and | seriously |
| principles and | concepts. | concepts, although a | superficial in places and | misunderstood, or no |
| concepts at a very | little superficial or | perhaps some | relevant theoretical | |
| high level of | flawed in places. | misconceptions. | framework | |
| sophistication. | established. | |||
| 30/100 | ||||
| Matters of detail: | Spelling, syntax | Spelling, syntax, | Spelling, syntax, | Unacceptably high |
| Spelling, syntax, | grammar, | grammar, punctuation | grammar, punctuation | number of minor |
| grammar, | punctuation and | and referencing | and referencing were | and/or numerous |
| punctuation and | referencing nearly all | generally correct | acceptable but there | serious errors. |
| referencing | correct although | although there were | were frequent minor or | |
| completely correct. | there were two or | more than three minor | serious errors. | |
| 20/100 | three minor errors. | errors. |
Get expert help for PROJ5005 Stakeholder Engagement and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
