| Category | Assignment | Subject | Sociology |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | UCL School of Management | Module Title | MSIN0013 Critical Analytical Thinking |
| Assessment Title | Coursework 2 Scenario Week Report |
| Assessment Type | Individual |
Students should submit all work by the published deadline date and time. Students experiencing sudden or unexpected events beyond their control that impact their ability to complete assessed work by the set deadlines may request mitigation via the extenuating circumstances procedure. Students with disabilities or ongoing, long-term conditions should explore a Summary of Reasonable Adjustments. Students may use the delayed assessment scheme for pre-determined mitigation on a limited number of assessments in a year. Check the Delayed Assessment Scheme area on Portico to see if this assessment is eligible.
Students should expect to receive feedback within 20 working days of the submission deadline, as per UCL guidelines. The module team will update you if there are delays through unforeseen circumstances (e.g. ill health). All results, when first published, are provisional until confirmed by the Examination Board.
Copyright of this assessment brief is with UCL and the module leader(s) named above. If this brief draws upon work by third parties (e.g. Case Study publishers), such third parties also hold copyright. It must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or shared with any other individual(s) and/or organisations, including web-based organisations, without permission of the copyright holder(s) at any point in time.
Academic Misconduct is defined as any action or attempted action that may result in a student obtaining an unfair academic advantage. Academic misconduct includes plagiarism, self-plagiarism, obtaining help from/sharing work with others, be they individuals and/or organisations or any other form of cheating that may result in a student obtaining an unfair academic advantage. Refer to Academic Manual Chapter 6, Section 9: Student Academic Misconduct Procedure - 9.2 Definitions.
You must reference and provide full citation for ALL sources used, including AI sources, articles, textbooks, lecture slides and module materials. This includes any direct quotes and paraphrased text. If in doubt, reference it. If you need further guidance on referencing, please see UCL's referencing tutorial for students. Failure to cite references correctly may result in your work being referred to the Academic Misconduct Panel.
Your module leader will explain to you if and how AI tools can be used to support your assessment. In some assessments, the use of generative AI is not permitted at all. In other words, AI may be used in an assistive role, which means students are permitted to use AI tools to support the development of specific skills required for the assessment as specified by the module leader. In other words, the use of AI tools may be an integral component of the assessment; in these cases, the assessment will provide an opportunity to demonstrate effective and responsible use of AI. See page 3 of this brief to check which category of AI falls into for this assessment. Students should refer to the UCL guidance on acknowledging the use of AI and referencing AI. Failure to correctly reference the use of AI in assessments may result in students being reported via the Academic Misconduct procedure. Refer to the section of the UCL Assessment Success Guide on Engaging with AI in your education and assessment.
Read and follow all instructions in this official brief. It supersedes any other representations made verbally by instructors, TAs, or others. No other criteria will necessarily be applied to grading, including representations or file submissions outside of the instructions or after the fact.
You will be given a wicked problem during Scenario Week 4 and assigned to a team representing a real stakeholder in a complex system. You will work toward a negotiated team solution over four days, and your group will pitch a team presentation on day five. To deeply understand the wicked problem, you are required every day to conduct research online, collaborate with your team members, interview and negotiate with other student teams, and meet with the 'CEO' (Module Leader) on demand. You are expected to contribute and collaboratively discuss your research and findings with your team. From individual contributions, the team should collectively decide what findings they will use and actions they will take toward developing the negotiated team solution and team presentation for day five.
Grading for this coursework includes three components: (1) your record of observed Engagement each day of the Scenario Week, and (2) the quality and accuracy of your Essay submission (see Grading Criteria below), and (3) the score awarded to the team Presentation of the negotiated solution pitched on day five.
Do You Need MSIN0013 Assignment for This Question
Order Non-Plagiarised AssignmentEngagement Reward Tickets with unique codes will be handed out each day at Scenario Week to students observed in engaged learning* in seminars. Your grade for this component will be the number of ticket codes that you submit correctly** in proportion to the maximum number of days that the rewards were available (maximum 1 per day, estimated total 5 days of Scenario Week). No other form of engagement evidence will be considered after the fact.
Engaged learning is not attendance. Each ticket rewarded for engaged learning will be decided at the discretion of the teaching team, including TAs, informed by observations that include but are not limited to arriving on-time and prepared for constructive engagement with the team and teaching team, personal report in class as requested of individual contribution during the day, and answers when asked questions. All engagement decisions become final unless the student reports a problem with engagement rewards to j.pittaway@ucl.ac.uk within 7 days.
You are required to append the full ticket code you receive to the Engagement Rewards Registry 1 on Moodle each day. Lost tickets cannot be reissued. The registry will close on the deadline for this assignment, and no ticket code submissions will necessarily be entertained after the deadline. A maximum of one correctly submitted, valid, non-duplicate ticket code will count per day. Keep your codes private: duplication of ticket codes between students will be reported as academic misconduct.
Although you will be working in a team during scenario week, your Essay submission must be an individual report about your research, collaborations, and analysis of interviews/ negotiations with other groups and the CEO (as applicable). Your report writing should be distinctive from other team members as it is based on your research and reasoning. Do not share your individual submission writing with any other students because high similarities may constitute academic misconduct. For each section, it may be wise to reflect on and write about something you found/analysed, even if it turned out to be flawed or was not selected by the team and then explain your reasoning. This minimises the similarity to others.
In approximately 650 words per question, write a short credible, logical argument essay answer to each of the following five questions, using and citing the most relevant taught course concepts. Do not include executive summary, abstract, contents, introduction, summary or any other content other than answering the questions.
You must cite all taught course concepts that you use in your essays to the reference provided in the lecture slides or, if not provided, cite the lecture slide using "(Author, Year, slide title or number)" format for in-text citations. In general, you should consider the relevance to your report of each concept taught in each lecture week. However, you are required to make critical choices about the most relevant taught concepts to include in your report, and less relevant details that should be omitted to demonstrate educated critical choice. You must also cite and reference all external sources, including data sources, that you report in your essay. These citations must be reflected completely in a References section at the end of the document. Citations and references must use Harvard referencing style with fuller details, where available, such as the URLs of external data sources.
Do not introduce theories/concepts/frameworks outside of those taught in MSIN0013 lectures and seminars. Doing so will be evidence of (1) failure to understand the relevance of taught concepts and (2) an essay produced by AI, a serious academic misconduct.
Figures and tables. If you include a figure or table, you must:
Structure and label each section exactly according to the questions in the following list. Be aware that graders will ONLY look for the answer within the structure specified herein. They will NOT go looking for answers in other sections or poorly structured paragraphs and documents.
(1 paragraph)State one highly relevant Question for your Initial State research regarding the stakeholder you represent and that stakeholder's perspective on the wicked problem. Then, logically explain one unique example of what you found, some evidence(cited), and what it means to whom(including a hypothesis) for our understanding of your stakeholder's Initial State. Your findings and explanation should be different of other students.
(2-3 paragraphs)How confident are you in the finding above, and why? Apply the taught course concept to explain why you have that level of confidence.
(1 paragraph)State one highly relevant Question for your Desired State research regarding the stakeholder you represent and that stakeholder's perspective on the wicked problem. Then logically explain one unique example of what you found, some evidence(cited), and what it means to whom (including a hypothesis) for our understanding of your stakeholder's Initial State. Your findings and explanation should be different of other students.
(2-3 paragraphs)How confident are you in the finding above, and why? Apply taught course concepts to explain why you have that level of confidence.
(1 paragraph)State one highly relevant Question for your Transformation research regarding the stakeholder you represent and that stakeholder's perspective on the wicked problem. Then logically explain one unique example of what you found, some evidence(cited), and what it means to whom (including a hypothesis) for our understanding of your stakeholder's Initial State. Your findings and explanation should be different of other students.
(2-3 paragraphs)How confident are you in the finding above, and why? Apply taught course concepts to explain why you have that level of confidence.
15% of the grade for this assessment will be based on the score awarded to the presentation of the negotiated solution pitched on day five. Instructions and parameters for presentations will be presented.
Interpret with judgment any conclusions, since acting on any conclusion will likely have different consequences for different stakeholders. Multiple perspectives/alternatives should be explicitly compared, trade-offs well analysed, and recommendations should explicitly attempt to balance trade-offs.
All required in-text citations and references must be included and accurately formatted to the Harvard referencing specification. All referenced documents must be accessible via UCL library or Google. Inaccessible references generated by AI will result in a zero score for this criterion and may be investigated for academic misconduct.
A score will be awarded to the presentation of the negotiated solution pitched on day five of Scenario Week. Instructions and parameters for presentations will be presented in class. Any student who did not contribute substantively throughout the scenario week to the development of the final presentation will receive zero for this component if it is not a product of their work.
This assessment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:
Within each section of this assessment, you may be assessed on the following aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this assessment, and should thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:
Student submissions are reviewed/scrutinised by an internal assessor and are available to an External Examiner for further review/scrutiny before consideration by the relevant Examination Board.
It is not uncommon for some students to feel that their submissions deserve higher marks (irrespective of whether they deserve higher marks). To help you assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of your submission, please refer to the SOM Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located on the Assessment tab of the SOM Student Information Centre Moodle site.
The above is an important link as it specifies the criteria for attaining the pass/fail bandings shown below:
80% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - 1st; 70% to 79%: Excellent Pass - 1st; 60%-69%: Very Good Pass - 2.1;
50% to 59%: Good Pass - 2.2; 40% to 49%: Satisfactory Pass - 3rd; 20% to 39%: Insufficient to Pass -
Fail; 0% to 19%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass - Fail.
86% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - Distinction; 70% to 85%: Excellent Pass - Distinction; 60%-69%: Good
Pass - Merit; 50% to 59%: Satisfactory - Pass; 40% to 49%: Insufficient to Pass - Fail; 0% to 39%: Poor and
Insufficient to Pass - Fail.
You are strongly advised to review these criteria before you start your work and during your work, and before you submit.
Upon receipt of your mark, you are strongly advised not to compare your mark with marks of other submissions from your student colleagues. Each submission has its range of characteristics which differ from others in terms of breadth, scope, depth, insights, and subtleties and nuances. On the surface, one submission may appear to be similar to another, but invariably, digging beneath the surface reveals a range of differing characteristics.
Students who wish to request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examiners should refer to the UCL Academic Appeals Procedure, taking note of the acceptable grounds for such appeals. Note that the purpose of this procedure is not to dispute academic judgement - it is to ensure correct application of UCL's regulations and procedures. The appeals process is evidence-based, and circumstances must be supported by independent evidence.
Any additional information is available here. If no additional information is included in this section, none are applicable.
Hire Experts to solve this assignment before your Deadline
Buy Today, Contact UsDo you need help with an assignment for MSIN0013 Critical Analytical Thinking? Look no further! We are here for sociology assignment help. We also provide free assignment solutions written by PhD expert writers—100% original content, no plagiarism! Plus, we also provide assignment help, that too completed before the deadline. Quality and accuracy are taken care of completely. So contact us today and be stress-free!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
