Rate approaches to change management in Health and Social Care.

Assignment Sections

A+/A (70-100%

B+/B (60-69%)

C+/C (50-59%)

D/D+ (40-49%)

Fail (0-39%)

Reflection on Myers-Briggs assessment

5/100

A Myers-Briggs self-evaluation has been competently completed. A clear and concise evaluation of its relevance to understanding self as a leader

 A Myers-Briggs self-evaluation has been completed. A good evaluation of its relevance to understanding self as a leader

A Myers-Briggs self-evaluation has been completed. A sound evaluation of its relevance to understanding self as a leader.

A Myers-Briggs self-evaluation has been completed but with errors. A brief evaluation of its relevance to understanding self as a leader.

The sections is missing or the assessment is incomplete. No/minimal evaluation of its relevance to understand self as a leader.

Evaluation of change management theories

30/100

The leadership scenario is clearly and concisely outlined.

Rating the value and relevance of the Lewin’s and Kotter’s theories of change is justified with the use of relevant evidence. The theories have been applied precisely to the scenario. Critical writing should be seen throughout the section. 

The scenario is accurately outlined. There is a good outline rating the relevance of Lewin’s and Kotter’s theories of change. The theories have been applied to the scenario but there may be some areas where critical writing is missing. 

The scenario is outlined. There is a sound outline rating the relevance of Lewin’s and Kotter’s theories of change. There is adequate application of the theories to the scenario. Entirely descriptive writing is not sufficient for this grade.

The scenario is introduced but with some inaccuracies. Rating the relevance of Lewin’s and Kotter’s theories of change is introduced but with some inaccuracies. The theories are described but they are not always linked fully to the scenario and there may be sections where there are no critical statements

The introduction of the scenario is absent/minimal. There is no/minimal introduction to rating the relevance of Lewin’s and Kotter’s theories of change. There is little or no demonstration of understanding of the theories and their relevance to the scenario

Evaluation of leadership theories

30/100

Knowledge and understanding of theory is exceptionally detailed and sophisticated. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated. Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is integrated into the reflection of self as a leader.

Shows a systematic and accurate understanding of key theories, which are appropriately applied within the context of the reflection of self as a leader.

Sound descriptive knowledge of the key theories with some appropriate application to the reflection of self as a leader.

The discussion of the theory is satisfactory but application and/or understanding to the relevance of the reflection is limited.

Knowledge of theory inaccurate and/or incomplete. Application to the reflective task is very limited/absent.

Application of the Gibbs Model

15/100

The Gibbs model has been competently applied as a framework for critical reflection. Demonstrated excellent reflective awareness, articulating imaginative thinking about implications for future practice as a leader.

The Gibbs model has been applied as a framework for critical reflection. Demonstrated good reflective awareness, considers implications for future practice as a leader.

The Gibbs model has been applied but critical reflection is limited. Demonstrated sound reflective awareness and considered some implications for future practice as a leader.

The Gibbs model has been applied but is descriptive rather than analytical. Demonstrated limited reflective awareness and briefly considered implications for future practice as a leader.

The stages of the Gibbs model are missing or not expressed correctly. There has been no/minimal reflective awareness and no/minimal consideration of the implications for future practice as a leader

Use of information to analyse and evaluate

20/100

There is an exceptional fluent writing style and organisation and coherence that clearly enhances the argument.  All claims are supported with high-quality sources. The relevance of the information is clearly analysed and evaluations are made.  References are correctly formatted using the OBU Harvard style as per the guidance.

There is a fluent writing style and strong logical organisation that enhances the argument. Claims are supported with high-quality sources although there may be one or two errors or omissions. The relevance of the information is analysed and evaluations are made.  The reference list uses a different referencing style or has a small number of errors. But all references should be included.  

In some parts, there is a fluent writing style and some logic to the organisation. There are references to support claims, but these may be lower-quality or there may be some omissions. There is some analysis of the relevance of the information and limited evaluations are made.  The reference list may have multiple errors, but it will be complete, and it should be possible to identify the sources used.     

Writing has limited fluency and organisation to support arguments. There are minimal references to support claims and they are of a low-quality with omissions. There is limited analysis of the relevance of the information and minimal/no evaluations are made.     The reference list may be incomplete or have errors which misses information needed to find sources.

Writing is incoherent and disorganized. There is no analysis of the relevance of the information and no evaluations are made.   Referencing may be missing or may not match sources used. The errors are found in nearly all references.