Project Quality and Management Fundamentals of Entrepreneurship MB123Marketing Week 5 MB123Marketing Week 6 Establish and conduc…

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 11th October, 2019 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
ASSESSMENT BRIEF
COURSE: Bachelor of Information Technology
Unit:
Project Quality and Management
Unit Code:
PAQM321
Type of Assessment:
Assessment task 3 – Reflective Journal
Length/Duration:
3000 words
Unit Learning
Outcomes addressed:
Upon successful completion of this unit students should be able to:
1. Identify and explain alternative models for information systems project
management and how these can be applied in practice in different styles of global
organisations
3. Discuss the Project Management Body of Knowledge and how this relates to the
planning, scheduling and control of information systems projects and their change
management plan
4. Explain the need for and the basic principles of professional and ethical software
and project quality assurance principles in the design and management of a complex
information systems project
5. Identify the objectives of and describe the phases of systems and software testing
in the development of an information systems project
Submission Date:
Week 14
Assessment Task:
Students are required to analyse the weekly lecture material of weeks 1 to 11 and
create concise content analysis summaries of the theoretical concepts contained
in the course lecture slides.
Total Mark:
100 marks
Weighting:
Converted to 50% of the unit total marks
Students are advised that submission of an Assessment Task past the due date without a formally
signed approved Assignment Extension Form (Kent Website MyKent Student Link> FORM – Assignment
Extension Application Form – Student Login Required)
More information, please refer to (Kent Website MyKent Student Link> POLICY – Assessment Policy &
Procedures – Student Login Required)
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 11th October, 2019 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION:
Students are required to write a Reflective Journal in which they reflect on unit content and learning
experiences between weeks 1 and 11. In this assignment you should describe an interesting or
important aspect of each week’s content/experiences, analyse this aspect of the week critically by
incorporating and discussing academic or professional sources, and then discuss your personal
learning outcomes.
The document structure is as follows (3000 words):
1. Title page
2. Introduction (~150 words)
a. Introduce the focus of the unit and the importance of the unit to your
chosen professional area. Provide a preview of the main experiences and
outcomes you discuss in the body of the assignment.
3. Body: Reflective paragraphs for each week from week 1 to week 11 (1 paragraph per
week, ~250 words per paragraph).
In each reflective paragraph:
a. DESCRIPTION (~50 words): Describe the week
• Generally, what was the focus of this week’s lecture and tutorial?
• What is one specific aspect of the week’s learning
content that was interesting for you? (e.g. a theory, a task, a tool, a
concept, a principle, a strategy, an experience etc.)? Describe
it and explain why you chose to focus on it in this paragraph. (*Note:
a lecture slide is not an acceptable choice, but an idea or concept on
it is)
b. ANALYSIS (~75 words): Analyse one experience from the week
• Analyse the one specific aspect of the week you identified above.
• How did you feel or react when you experienced it? Explain.
• What do other academic publications or professional resources that
you find in your own research say about this? (include at least 1
reliable academic or professional source from your own
research). Critically analyse your experience in the context of these
sources.
c. OUTCOMES (~75 words): Identify your own personal learning outcomes
• What have you learned about this aspect of the unit?
• What have you learned about yourself?
• What do you still need to learn or get better at?
• Do you have any questions that still need to be answered?
• How can you use this experience in the future when you become a
professional?
4. Conclusion (~100 words): Summarise the most important learning outcomes you
experienced in this unit and how you will apply them professionally or academically in
the future.
5. Reference List
Your report must include:
• At least 10 references, 5 of which must be academic resources, 5 of which can be
reliable, high-quality professional resources.
• Use Harvard referencing for any sources you use
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 11th October, 2019 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
• Refer to the Academic Learning Support student guide on Reflective Writing and
how to structure reflective paragraphs
ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:
This assignment should be submitted online in Moodle through Turnitin.
The assignment MUST be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format. Other formats may not
be readable by markers. Please be aware that any assessments submitted in other formats will be
considered LATE and will lose marks until it is presented in Word.
For assistance please speak to our Academic Learning Skills Coordinators, in Sydney
([email protected]) or in Melbourne ([email protected]). They can help you with
understanding the task, draft checking, structure, referencing and other assignment-related matters.
GENERAL NOTES FOR ASSESSMENT TASKS
Content for Assessment Task papers should incorporate a formal introduction, main points and
conclusion.
Appropriate academic writing and referencing are inevitable academic skills that you must develop
and demonstrate in work being presented for assessment. The content of high quality work presented
by a student must be fully referenced within-text citations and a Reference List at the end. Kent
strongly recommends you refer to the Academic Learning Support Workshop materials available on
the Kent Learning Management System (Moodle). For details please click the link
http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606 and download the file titled
“Harvard Referencing Workbook”. This Moodle Site is the location for Workbooks and information
that are presented to Kent Students in the ALS Workshops conducted at the beginning of each
Trimester.
Kent recommends a minimum of FIVE (5) references in work being presented for assessment. Unless
otherwise specifically instructed by your Lecturer or as detailed in the Unit Outline for the specific
Assessment Task, any paper with less than five (5) references may be deemed not meeting a
satisfactory standard and possibly be failed.
Content in Assessment tasks that includes sources that are not properly referenced according to the
“Harvard Referencing Workbook” will be penalised.
Marks will be deducted for failure to adhere to the word count if this is specifically stated for the
Assessment Task in the Unit Outline. As a general rule there is an allowable discretionary variance to
the word count in that it is generally accepted that a student may go over or under by 10% than the
stated length.
GENERAL NOTES FOR REFERENCING
References are assessed for their quality. Students should draw on quality academic sources, such as
books, chapters from edited books, journals etc. The textbook for the Unit of study can be used as a
reference, but not the Lecturer Notes. The Assessor will want to see evidence that a student is capable
of conducting their own research. Also, in order to help Assessors determine a student’s
understanding of the work they cite, all in-text references (not just direct quotes) must include the
specific page number(s) if shown in the original. Before preparing your Assessment Task or own
contribution, please review this ‘YouTube’ video (Avoiding Plagiarism through Referencing) by clicking
on the following link: link: http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 11th October, 2019 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
A search for peer-reviewed journal articles may also assist students. These type of journal articles can
be located in the online journal databases and can be accessed from the Kent Library homepage.
Wikipedia, online dictionaries and online encyclopaedias are acceptable as a starting point to gain
knowledge about a topic, but should not be over-used – these should constitute no more than 10% of
your total list of references/sources. Additional information and literature can be used where these
are produced by legitimate sources, such as government departments, research institutes such as the
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), or international organisations such as the
World Health Organisation (WHO). Legitimate organisations and government departments produce
peer reviewed reports and articles and are therefore very useful and mostly very current. The content
of the following link explains why it is not acceptable to use non-peer reviewed websites (Why can’t I
just Google?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39mnu1Pkgw
(Thank you to La Trobe University for access to this video).
MARKING GUIDE (RUBRIC):
Your answers for the final examination questions will be assessed as per the following marking criteria.
Please read carefully each section/level and marks weightage.
Fail
(0-49%)
Pass
(50-64%)
Credit
(65-74%)
Distinction
(75-84%)
High Distinction
(>85%)
Research
10%
Little
evidence
of
research.
Sources
are
missing.
Inappropr
iate,
poorly
integrate
d or
lacking
credibility
. Lacks
clear link
of
sources
with
analysis.
A minimum of 5
academic
sources and 5
other
professional
sources. Basic
use of sources
to support
analysis,
generally well
integrated,
most sources
are credible.
Research is
generally
thorough.
Good use of
sources to
support
analysis,
mostly well
integrated,
sources are
credible.
Thorough
research is
indicated. Very
good use of
sources to
support
analysis, well
integrated,
sources are
credible.
Thorough
research is
indicated.
Professional use
of sources to
support analysis,
well integrated,
sources are
credible.
Content
Information,
Content, and
Balance in
body
paragraphs:
-Description
-Analysis
-Outcomes
60%
Journal
lacks
coherenc
e; is
poorly
addresse
d; no
proper
descriptio
n of unit
content;
little
analysis.
Journal is
generally
coherent; unit
content is
described
generally for all
weeks, with
occasional focus
on relevant
aspects;
analyses are in
reasonable
depth with
Journal is
coherent and
flows well;
description of
unit content
focusses on
one
appropriate
aspect of each
week;
analyses are in
considerable
depth with
Journal is very
coherent and
flows well;
description of
unit content is
thorough and
focusses clearly
on one
appropriate
aspect of the
week; analyses
are in very good
depth with
Outstanding
work. Journal is
very coherent
and flows well;
unit content is
described
thoroughly with
invariably
relevant choices
of focus in each
paragraph;
analyses is in
great depth and
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 11th October, 2019 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
5 or 6 marks
per week,
depending on
number of
weeks
No
discussio
n of
personal
learning
outcomes
.
some
connections to
research. There
are some
inconsistencies
and weaknesses
with balance of
discussion
(description/an
alysis/outcomes
). Discussion of
personal
learning
outcomes is
very basic.
good
connections to
research.
There may be
some
inconsistencie
s and
weaknesses
with balance
of discussion
(description/a
nalysis/outco
mes).
Discussion of
personal
learning
outcomes is
good.
strong
connections
made to
research.
Inconsistencies
and weakness
with balance of
discussion
(description/an
alysis/outcomes
) are rare.
Discussion of
personal
learning
outcomes is
insightful and in
depth.
offers excellent
discussion of
relevant
academic/profess
ional discourse.
Very minor, if
any,
inconsistencies
and weaknesses
with balance of
discussion in
paragraphs.
Discussion of
personal learning
outcomes
demonstrates
excellent ability
with reflective
analysis.
Structure
10%
Topic and
focus are
not clear
in
introducti
on. Body
content
poorly or
never
structure
d. No
discernibl
e
conclusio
n; no
links to
introducti
on.
Topic and focus
are stated with
some clarity in
introduction.
Body content
demonstrates
some logical
paragraph
structure with
some
weaknesses.
Conclusion does
not clearly
summarise
journal; links to
introduction are
not clear.
Topic and
focus are
clearly
conveyed in
introduction.
Paragraphs in
the body
demonstrate
good logical
structure with
few or minor
weaknesses.
Conclusion
summarises
journal; may
be some
weaknesses;
generally clear
links to intro.
Topic and focus
are clearly
outlined in
introduction.
Paragraphs in
the body
demonstrate
very good
logical structure
with very few
weaknesses.
Conclusion
mostly
effectively
summarises
journal; with
clear links to
introduction.
Topic and focus
are clearly
outlined in
introduction.
Paragraphs in the
body
demonstrate
excellent logical
structure with no
weaknesses.
Conclusion
effectively
summarises
journal; with
clear links to
introduction.
Language
10%
Poor
standard
of
writing.
Word
limit may
not be
adhered
to.
Incorrect
format
(e.g.
includes
Table of
contents;
A minimum of
1000 words.
Basic and sound
standard of
writing; some
errors in
punctuation,
grammar and
spelling.
Inconsistencies
with the
formatting.
Good standard
of writing; few
errors in
punctuation,
grammar and
spelling.
Almost correct
format.
Very good
standard of
writing; very
few or minor
errors in
punctuation,
grammar and
spelling. Correct
formatting.
Professional
standard of
writing; no errors
in punctuation,
grammar and
spelling. Correct
formatting.
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
Version 2: 11th October, 2019 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
bullet
points;
graphs
etc.)
Referencing
10%
No
referenci
ng is
evident
or, if
done, is
inconsiste
nt and
technicall
y
incorrect.
No or
minimal
reference
list,
mixed
styles. No
in text
citations
Basic and sound
attempt to
reference
sources; may be
some
inconsistencies
and technical
errors in style.
Reference list is
generally
complete with 1
or 2 references
missing. May be
weaknesses
with
paraphrasing or
integration
/application.
Good attempt
to reference
sources;
inconsistencie
s and technical
errors in style.
Few
inaccuracies in
reference list
and all
references
listed. Some
ability
emerging with
paraphrasing
or integration/
application.
Very good
attempt to
reference
sources; very
minor
inconsistencies
and technical
errors in style.
Thorough and
consistent
reference list
and all
references
listed. Good
ability with
paraphrasing or
integration/
application.
Professional level
of referencing
and
acknowledgment;
no errors of style
evident.
Thorough and
consistent
reference list and
all references
listed. Very good
ability with
paraphrasing or
integration/
application.

Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER