Order this Assignment Now: £129 VALID THRU: 13-Oct-2024
An evaluation of either the Kolb or Brookfield reflective model
ACADEMIC YEAR
SEMESTER
2024-25
1 / 2 / 1 & 2 (all year)
SUBJECT
DELIVERING INSTITUTION
Business
ICON College of Technology and Management
PROGRAMME(S)
BA (Hons) Business Studies with Foundation Year (4 years)
LEVEL
MODULE CODE
MODULE TITLE
CREDITS
ECTS CREDITS
FDY00720.23
Reflective Learning
N/A
N/A
COMPONENT
WEIGHTING
UNISTATS CATEGORY
ASSIGNMENT TYPE
OF
100%
Coursework
Portfolio
ANONYMOUS MARKING
This assignment will be marked anonymously (for further information please consult the relevant section of the Quality Handbook.
YES
ü
NO
TASK DESCRIPTION
The portfolio will include three tasks:
An evaluation of either the Kolb or Brookfield reflective model (500 words).
A reflective essay of your learning from your subject sessions (typically 1000 words).
A reflective log (using the provided template) of your learning from engaging with your subject sessions. The log will include three SMART actions that will support your transition into the subject phase of your programme (500 words).
1. An evaluation of a reflective model (typically 500 words).
You will have studied two models in session: Kolb and Brookfield. Write an evaluation of either the Kolb or the Brookfield reflective model. You might want to include information such as, how useful it is, its limitations and how you would improve on it. Explain how you believe the model would help you to be a reflective learner. This evaluation should be written in formal academic language and include at least two sources which are correctly cited and comply with Harvard referencing.
2. A reflective essay of your learning experiences from the subject sessions (typically 1000 words) You will write a reflective essay on what you have learnt from the subject sessions you attended. This will include reflections on the subject matter as well as what you have learnt about the skills needed to study the subject. We recommend that you record reflections as you attend each session and also include an overarching reflection looking back on all the sessions attended. It should be underpinned by references to literature, which are correctly cited and comply with Harvard referencing.
TASK DESCRIPTION
3. A reflective log of things learnt from engaging with subject sessions (500 words equivalent). You will complete a reflective log (using the provided template), populating it with your personal reflections of the academic skills you have learnt from your subject sessions. The log will include three SMART actions that will support your transition into the subject phase of your programme.
Your submission should be submitted as one document containing all 3 tasks and a reference list that complies with Harvard referencing.
MODULE OUTCOMES
Please include only the module learning outcomes to be met in this assignment
These must
On successful completion of this Module students will be able to:
Demonstrate the ability to work with others on a collaborative reflective task.
Share a personal reflection on learning with others.
WORD COUNT
OR
TIME LIMIT
2000 words
SUBMISSION METHOD
The assignment will be submitted through Turnitin
Turnitin
DATE/TIME OF SUBMISSION
Wed 20 March 2024
*Please see guidance below on application of late penalties*
To be completed by Icon College in consultation with BGU when the module is issued
DATE/TIME OF SUBMISSION IF EXTENSION AUTHORISED
Wed 27 March 2024
To be completed by Icon College in consultation with BGU when the module is issued
Where an extension is not possible due to the practical nature of the assignment please note this here. This should be 5 working days after the original submission date.
‘Working days’ are Mon-Fri with the exception of public holidays.
SUBMISSION GUIDANCE
When you are submitting your assignment, please make sure you have followed the following instructions:
1. Your submission folder opens on the days of submission and closes on the deadline. We recommend you submit your work into the Draft Assignment Submission Point to check the originality reports before submission for marking
2. You are allowed to submit your assignment only once (one attempt only).
3. You can submit an electronic copy through Turnitin in Microsoft Word (DOC or DOCX) format. Please make sure you download and keep your digital receipt as proof of submission.
4. Make sure you are submitting the correct assignment in the correct unit. Under special circumstances, if you submit your assignment in the incorrect unit, please contact your Head of Department (HoD) urgently and they will take steps to help you rectify this. If the assignment becomes overdue whilst the error is being resolved, it will incur late penalties. If the assignment is not uploaded correctly and you do not contact your HoD, your assignment will not be marked and will be considered as your first submission.
5. Once you have submitted your assignment, make sure that it is not if it still “pending” or it does not show the Similarity Index after 48 hours you must contact your Head of Department (HoD) for help. If your assignment does not upload correctly, and you do not contact your HoD there is a risk that it the assignment will not be marked and will be considered as your first submission.
RETURN DATE
Friday 19 April 2024
To be completed by Icon College in consultation with BGU when the module is issued
This should be 20 working days after the original submission date
FEEDBACK
Formative feedback will be provided in class during the module. Provisional summative feedback will be available in the VLE within 20 working days of the assignment submission date.
Feedback is available from 9am on the date specified, unless advised otherwise. If you have any specific questions relating to the comments on the feedback sheet, please contact your Module Tutor and arrange a tutorial with them. All grades are indicative and will be subject to confirmation at the Programme’s Module Assessment Board.
MARK SCHEME
GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT
You must ensure that you familiarise yourself with the relevant section of BGU Quality Handbook which governs all Bishop Grosseteste University assessments.
COMPLETING YOUR ASSIGNMENT
The first point of contact for help with assignments is your tutor. The tutor explains the structure of the assignment, assessment criteria and the expectations. Formative feedback will be given in class throughout the semester. You can also get help from Personal tutors.
To get the most from the support available, please access it at the earliest opportunity.
REFERENCING
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13E5eppxk1iodiZGHHaqgyyoFloENq4Xl/view?usp=sharing
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Your attention is drawn to ICON College’s Academic Misconduct policy https://www.bishopg.ac.uk/document-download/61899 covering plagiarism. Penalties for work found to be plagiarised can be severe and can include the withdrawal of the right to resubmit work and/or termination of studies. On submission of the assignment, you will be required to declare that the work is your own and that all sources have been properly acknowledged.
Your attention is drawn to the relevant section of the University’s Quality Handbook covering academic misconduct including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, cheating, soliciting or commissioning work, and collusion. Penalties for academic misconduct can be severe and can include the withdrawal of the right to resubmit work and/or termination of studies. On submission of the assignment, you will be required to declare that the work is your own and that all sources have been properly acknowledged.
ORIGINALITY CHECK
ICON College uses originality software to check student work. Occasionally, requests will be received from other institutions to see student work where the software has noted potential high levels of duplication. In these instances, ICON College reserves the right to share the work anonymously with the institution concerned.
LATE SUBMISSION OF WORK
Unless your assignment is submitted by the deadline indicated above, penalties will be applied in accordance with the BGU Quality Handbook.
Please Note: if work is submitted more than 24 hours after the deadline, it will receive a mark of zero.
Under special circumstances, if you submit your assignment in the incorrect unit or need any help, please contact your Head of Department or Academic Administrative Officer (AAO) (Jharna@iconcollege.ac.uk) urgently and they will take steps to help you rectify this. If the assignment becomes overdue whilst the error is being resolved, it will incur late penalties
If you do not upload your assignment correctly and you do not contact your HoD or AAO, your assignment will not be marked and will be considered as your first submission.
PRESENTATION OF WORK
The module tutor will advise students about the expectations in terms of presentation, format, style, layout etc.
EXTENSIONS
All requests for extensions (EEC) must be submitted to the Examinations Office on the e-form available in the ICON VLE during the assignment submission period. Such requests must be submitted with corroborating evidence if appropriate.
Applications must be submitted at least 1 working day BEFORE the published submission deadline above. Please note the change in regulations with regards the length of extensions:
Students enrolling on programmes with a foundation year from September 2022 and for all other taught qualifications from September 2023
Eligible for 5 working days
Students enrolling on programmes with a foundation year in September 2021 or before and for all other taught qualifications before September 2023
Eligible for 10 working days
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Following the submission of Extenuating Circumstance (EC) Request Form, requests will be considered by a panel, prior to the Assessment Board. The outcome if the EC Panel will inform the decision of Module Assessment Board as to the nature of the referral and whether the module grade will be capped or not. If approved the student will be informed of the relevant referral requirement. Further guidance is available in the Student Handbook and on the ICON VLE.
Academic Year 2024-2025
Mark Range
Understanding of Issues
Development of theme/argument
Selection and Analysis of Sources
Quality of Communication
90-100
An extremely confident and perceptive account, showing great assurance when discussing the issues. An account which offers sustained, high quality independent insights into the issues.
Very considerable evidence of independent thinking in a coherent, well-formulated structure, which draws key strands together making a coherent whole. Writing which is likely to show a very considerable degree of originality in its argument throughout.
Exceptionally scholarly use and evaluation of a wide range of sources. Very considerable evidence of originality in obtaining, handling and deploying a wide range of sources and in the critical judgements they support.
Excellent communication, containing no or almost no errors, and demonstrating very considerable stylistic elegance, sustained use of an appropriate register and great precision.
80-89
A very confident and perceptive account, showing great assurance when discussing the issues. An account which offers a number of independent and good quality insights into the issues.
Considerable evidence of independent thinking in a coherent, well-formulated structure, which draws key strands together making a coherent whole.
Writing which is likely to show some originality in its argument.
Very scholarly use and evaluation of a wide range of sources. Considerable evidence of originality in obtaining, handling and deploying sources and in the critical judgements they support.
Communication of very high quality, containing almost no errors, and showing considerable stylistic elegance, use of an appropriate register and great precision.
70-79
A confident and perceptive account, showing a sure understanding of issues and independent insight into them.
Independent thinking in a coherent, well-formulated structure, which draws key strands together.
Scholarly use and evaluation of sources. An element of originality employed in critical judgements.
Communication of high quality showing elegance of style, awareness of audience and precision of phrasing.
60-69
A clear and confident understanding of relevant issues and questions.
Clear evidence of independent and sustained thinking in the construction of an argument.
Critical judgement exercised in the selection, analysis and evaluation of primary and secondary sources based on careful research.
A written style which contributes to the clear and fluent communication of meaning. Generally appropriate for the audience, generally precise.
50-59
A generally sound understanding of relevant issues and questions.
An essay which is sound and coherent, if not decisively focused or argued. Not full of insight.
Competent description and analysis of primary and secondary sources with clear indications of the ability to select and evaluate evidence.
Few inconsistencies in written style which impair communication.
Possibly a few difficulties with register. Some imprecisions in phrasing.
40-49
Some understanding of relevant issues and questions.
A mainly coherently structured discussion but not adequately sustained.
Some ability to select and analyse sources but an account where the balance is towards the descriptive and remains over-reliant on secondary sources.
Some inconsistencies in written style which impair communication. Some difficulties with register. A number of problems with phrasing.
35-39
A limited understanding of relevant issues and questions
Limited evidence of the ability to provide a coherent structure for discussion.
Heavy reliance on a limited range of sources with little interpretation or analysis. A largely descriptive or derivative account.
Many inconsistencies and inaccuracies which impair communication; inappropriate register for audience.
30-34
A very limited understanding of relevant issues and questions.
Very limited evidence of the ability to provide a coherent structure for discussion.
Limited evidence of use of sources. Sources are likely to be inappropriate or used in an ineffective way.
Very many inconsistencies and inaccuracies which impair communication; inappropriate register for audience.
20-29
An extremely limited understanding of relevant issues and questions.
Extremely limited evidence of the ability to provide a coherent structure for discussion.
Very limited evidence of use of sources. Sources are likely to be inappropriate or used in an ineffective way.
Communication is disjointed, with poor grammar making it largely incoherent.
10-19
Very slight understanding of relevant issues and questions.
Very slight evidence of ability to provide a coherent structure for discussion.
Very slight evidence of sources.
Very slight evidence of communication.
0-9
No or almost no understanding of relevant issues and questions.
No or almost no evidence of the ability to provide a coherent structure for discussion
No or almost no evidence of sources.
No or almost no evidence of communication.
Order this Assignment Now:£129
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions
