ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF
Subject Code and Title MGT600 Management, People and Teams / MGMT6009 Managing People and Teams
Assessment Critical Discussion
Individual/Group Individual
Length 750 words
Learning Outcomes The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include:
a) Critically assess the key principles and theories underlying management to achieve high-performing organisations at projects, teams, and individual levels.
b) Critically evaluate and reflect on effective relationships between people and teams in organisations and projects.
Submission 12-Week Duration: Due by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday Module 2.2 (Week 4)
6-Week Duration: Due by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of
Module 2.2 (Week 2)
Weighting 20%
Total Marks 100 marks
Assessment Task
This assessment requires you to explore and critically discuss the models, concepts, and theories presented in Modules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 and their practical application through your experiences and observations by contributing to a group discussion and then submitting an individual critical discussion report.
Please refer to the Task Instructions for details on how to complete this task.
Context
Successful managers take a 360-degree view of their environment and are cognisant of opportunities to learn and apply ideas from other industries and disciplines. The first three submodules (Modules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1) of this subject serve to orient you to the varying roles and contexts in which managers must operate and introduces foundational skills in managing people and teams. This assessment is designed for you to demonstrate not only an understanding of managerial concepts but also their practical application. In doing so, you will demonstrate critical thinking and evaluative skills as well as effective communication skills required in a virtual environment.
Instructions
1. Group Formation
At the beginning of the trimester, you will be placed in a group of 3-4 students by the Learning Facilitator. Your group will be a forum for sharing thoughts, experiences, and research in relation to the learning activities in the Modules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1.
Note: Although the Assessment 1 is an individual assessment, it is important to build relationships with your group members. This is because you will work with the same group for Assessment 2. Introduce yourself to your group with an introductory post. It will also help to have a virtual meeting to get to know each other.
2. Complete Learning Activities in Modules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1
You are required to individually complete the following learning activities:
Module 1.1 Learning Activity 2: Environment Analysis and Actions for Managers
Module 1.2 Learning Activity 1: Comparing Operational Management and Project Management
Module 2.1 Learning Activity 1: Communication Styles
Each of these learning activities requires you to post responses (of 250 words) into the group discussion forum in Blackboard.
You are also required to comment (using 100–200 words) on the posts made by fellow group members contributing to their discussion by sharing your practical experiences, observations, and research.
Please refer to Modules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 Learning Activities section for more information about completing these learning activities.
3. Critical Discussion Report
You are required to submit an individually written critical discussion report of 750 words in MS Word (.doc or .docx) format, addressing the following questions:
• How are the topics covered in Modules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 relevant to you?
• How did your perceptions and experiences differ from those of the other group members?
• What have you learnt and how will you apply this in the future? If you are currently working or have previous work experience, you may discuss how you would manage situations differently based on your learnings.
4. Report Structure
Please structure your report as follows:
• Cover sheet: With student details (student name, ID number, subject code & name, assessment number and title)
• Introduction: Outline the context, purpose, and structure of your report (5–10% of word count)
• Main discussion section: Answer each of the questions above (80–90% of word count)
• Conclusion: Provide a summary of the report (5–10% of word count)
• Reference list
• Appendices: Include a copy of your posts and replies to your group discussion activities
Please note that this is a short report with a word limit of 750. Therefore, it is important that you make use of tables, figures, and diagrams as these are not part of your word count.
5. You will be assessed against the assessment rubric below and your level of insight and application of knowledge from Modules 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1.
You are strongly advised to read the rubric, which is an evaluation guide with criteria for grading your assignment—this will give you a clear picture of what a successful critical discussion report looks like.
Referencing
It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing in the Academic Skills webpage.
Submission Instructions
Submit your individual critical discussion report via the Assessment 1 link in the main navigation menu in MGT600 / MGMT6009 Management, People, and Teams. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
All submissions must be in MS Word (.doc or .docx) format. and contain a signed cover sheet.
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own and is appropriately referenced and academically written according to the Academic Writing Guide. Students also need to have read and be aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. These are viewable online.
Students also must keep a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts.
Assessment Rubric
Assessment Attributes Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard)
0-49% Pass
(Functional)
50-64% Credit (Proficient) 6574% Distinction
(Advanced)
75-84% High Distinction
(Exceptional)
85-100%
Contribution to the
discussion forum
Provides thoughtful a relevant contributions discussion topics a
activities
Percentage for this
criterion = 40%
Never posted any messages or rarely posts with occasional activity. Demonstrates little/limited understanding of the topics.
Entries are simple/short and are mostly irrelevant to the events. Lacks insight, depth, or is superficial.
Does not express opinion clearly. Demonstrates a basic understanding of the topics.
Entries are typically short, provide some insight/depth, and are connected to the events, topic, or activity. May contain some
irrelevant material.
Some personal opinion is expressed and is generally relevant to the task. Demonstrates a good understanding of the discussion topics.
Insightful entries with depth are connected to the events,
topic, or activity, and related to the task.
Personal opinion is expressed in an appropriate style. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the discussion topics.
Insightful entries connected to the events, topic, or activity. Relates events, learning activities, and processes to the purpose of the activity and outcomes.
Personal opinion is expressed in an appropriate style and is clearly related to the topic, activity, or process.
Provides links to supporting material.
Knowledge and
understanding
Understands the relevance of models, concepts, and theories presented in Module 1.1
– Module 2.1 Limited understanding of the relevance of models, concepts and theories.
Passable knowledge or understanding of the relevance of models, concepts and theories.
Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by Thorough knowledge or understanding of the models, concepts and theories.
Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence Highly developed understanding of the models, concepts and theories.
Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information A sophisticated
understanding of the models, concepts and theories. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information
Percentage for this
criterion = 20%
evidence from the research/course materials.
from the research/course materials.
Demonstrates a capacity to explain and discuss relevant concepts.
substantiated by robust evidence from the
research/course materials and extended reading.
Well demonstrated capacity to explain and discuss relevant concepts. substantiated by robust evidence from the
research/course materials and extended reading.
Expertly explain and discuss relevant concepts.
Reflection and
Evaluation
Reflect and evaluate how own perceptions and experiences differ from the group
members
Discuss the application of learnings to manage different situations in the future
Percentage for this
criterion = 20% Limited reflection and evaluation on how own perceptions and experiences differ from the group members.
Lack of discussion on how these learnings will be applied manage different situations in the future.
Rudimentary reflection and evaluation on how own perceptions and experiences differ from the group members.
Limited discussion on how these learnings will be applied manage different situations in the future.
Sufficient level of reflection and evaluation on how own perceptions and experiences
differ from the group
members.
Discussion on how these learnings will be applied manage different situations in the future provided.
Well written reflection and evaluation on how own perceptions and experiences differ from the group members.
In depth discussion on how these learnings will be applied manage different situations in the future.
Justified recommendations linked to the analysis. Highly sophisticated reflection and evaluation on how own perceptions and experiences differ from the group members.
Strong discussion on how learnings will be applied manage different situations in the future.
Clearly justified
recommendations based on the analysis, applying knowledge to new situations.
Use of academic and
discipline conventions
Critical discussion report meets the requirements
outlined in the
assignment brief
Poorly written. Does not adhere to the assignment brief.
Difficult to understand for audience; no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas; Written according to the academic genre.
Information, arguments, and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. Written according to the academic genre.
Information, arguments, and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. Line of reasoning is easy to follow. Well-written and adheres to the academic genre.
Information, arguments, and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre.
Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence,
Well-structured report with clear flow of ideas argument lacks supporting evidence. demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.
Appropriate use of credible resources
Correct citation of key resources using APA
referencing
Percentage for this criterion = 20% Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.
Inconsistent and inadequate use of good quality, credible, and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
No use of in-text references, or no reference list. Many mistakes in using the APA style.
Consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.
Little use of in-text referencing, or inadequate references consulted and added to references. Some mistakes in using APA style.
Good use of in-text referencing and appropriate number of references used and listed in the reference list.
Minor errors in using the APA style. Very good use of in-text referencing. All in-text references match with references listed.
No mistakes in using the APA style.
Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic.
Excellent and meticulous use of in-text referencing. All in-text references match with references listed in the reference list.
No mistakes in using the APA style.
